Talk:Insane Clown Posse/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8

"Til Hell Freezes Over"

Doesn't exist.

Prove me wrong

(says its a song insulting icp by eminem, i would know if it was real) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiraisback666 (talk • contribs) 03:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

A simple search on youtube can find it here.Juggalobrink (talk) 11:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Where are they from

Are they from Delray or Oak Park? Portillo (talk) 09:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Depends what you mean by "where are they from". Insane Clown Posse was officially formed in Delray. Joseph Utsler was raised as a kid in Oak Park. Joseph Bruce was raised as a kid in multiple places, including Oak Park and River Rouge (most notable places career-wise atleast). Early on in their career (1992-1993ish), Bruce and Utsler did live together in Cass Corridor in Detroit with a few other friends. So if you are asking about origin, then Insane Clown Posse is from Delray. If not, well then I hope this answered your question.Juggalobrink (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2009 (UTC)
Thanks. I wanted to know because the article for Delray listed the Inner City Posse as a gang that was from Delray, but was deleted by someone claiming that they are not from Delray. Portillo (talk) 07:55, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
No problem. When Inner City Posse was a gang, it was mainly in Delray and River Rouge, which they claimed home, thus resulting in a feud with a lot of other gangs. But they were also frequently present in Ferndale, Oak Park, and Birmingham as well, the latter being where the gang would just beat up and rob rich people. I've added the citation to the Delray page for Inner City Posse. Juggalobrink (talk) 12:46, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Discography

Ok i notice one thing on Insane Clown Posse page under discography, between 1995 and 1997 there is one album missing from 1996 called Tunnel of Love. I tried to edit it but don't know if it was me or my computer or what but I went through the whole process of saving what I edited but like I said it just didn't take. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.255.122.3 (talk) 05:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Seperate section for professional wrestling career

I was wondering what would be anyone's thoughts on creating a seperate section for Insane Clown Posse's professional wrestling career. It would be in the same manner of Early life of Keith Miller, Military career of Hugo Chávez, ect. Anyone agree or disagee with doing this? Juggalobrink (talk) 13:34, 17 October 2009 (UTC)

comedy rock

aren't they that too?--The other shadow 21:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Systemic bias

This is what I keep griping about. Rock, rap, metal — all get FA'd and mainpage'd with ease. We have only once ever had a country music article mainpage'd... oh yeah, because there's only one of them. That's one of the most egregious examples of systemic bias on the whole project, if you ask me (certainly not the most important, but the most easily observed). Do you all just not give a rip? Ten Pound Hammer, his otters and a clue-bat • (Many otters • One bat • One hammer) 17:09, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

If you have such a problem with the designated FA, you can choose to take it up with User:Raul654, who as it says here: "the final decision rests with the featured article director". Afro (Its More Than a Feeling) - Afkatk 17:58, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Entirely too long

This article is about twelve pages long, excluding the Notes section and downward, based on how many times I pressed page down. I fail to see why any musical artist should ever get an article this long on an encyclopedia. This is not biased, as I seriously know almost nothing about this artist, but am prevented by learning much by the apparent imperative necessity of reading all this crap. I do not need six paragraphs on the formation of the band. If I wanted that, I would read a biography, go to their website, or read something that isn't an encyclopedia. Don't slap me with a welcome template either, because if I were interested in editing this article, I would erase the entire thing so this oh-so-objective community can start from scratch and really contemplate the level of inclusionism they want to use in their approach to rewriting this overly long, inaccessible tome.

And this was a featured article? From an objective standpoint, if you knew nothing about this artist and happened to click on this article on the front page out of mild interest, would you even bother starting to read this article once you saw how long it was? This isn't quantum mechanics, the general article for which is about the same length as this one; nor is it, say, non-euclidean geometry, the article for which is half as long as this one and more deserving of the amount of time and attention people put into making this one; it's a damn hip-hip group.

Now how much of that two-paragraph entry did you even bother reading?

71.188.98.148 (talk) 11:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Edit request from NoNoAnonPlz, 8 May 2010

{{editsemiprotected}}

I want to make some information more correct on here.

NoNoAnonPlz (talk) 19:40, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Great. When you have a suggestion, please make a request.  Chzz  ►  23:19, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Someone with the permissions to edit protected articles might want to remove the "are a couple retards" section in the opening line - at the moment the article is protected with vandalism in place! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.157.65.147 (talk) 22:41, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Done, thanks for pointing it out - I'll watch the article in case of further vandalism -- Boing! said Zebedee 22:46, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

Place of origin for ICP

The infobox of the article states that ICP originated from the neighborhood of Delray in Detroit. However, the article itself provides no reasons for why Delray is the group's place of origin, aside from that one of the founding members "recalled his dream of a clown running around in Delray" when deciding on a new name for the group. While I'm not going to disparage Delray more than its mere existence already does, I think this article needs some mentioning or reasoning to support Delray as the group's origin. Otherwise, it needs to be removed from the infobox and another location inserted. — ♣№tǒŖïøŭş4lĭfė♫♪ 21:35, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Not the second Joker's Card

They aren't revealing the second Joker's Card on October 31st, 2010. The second Joker's Card is the Ringmaster. They're revealing the EIGHTH Joker's Card on October 31st, 2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

  • If you watch the video, they say that they are revealing the second card. It is the second card of the second deck. Bang! Pow! Boom! isn't the seventh card, it is the first of the second deck. This new one is the second.Juggalobrink (talk) 12:30, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

I did. However you refer to it the article doesn't make that clear. It suggests they're revealing the Ringmaster this Halloween. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.112.62 (talk) 21:34, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

eminem beef

icp and eminem squashed the beef http://www.rapbasement.com/eminem/090210-icp-says-that-proof-of-d12-ended-the-beef-with-eminem-a-long-time-ago-watch-here-click-now.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.186.180.94 (talk) 06:13, 3 September 2010 (UTC)

what ecw program? was this just chopped in half?

Nationwide tour

Two days after the ECW program, Insane Clown Posse began its rescheduled nationwide tour with House of Krazees and Myzery. Their first concert, held in Orlando, Florida, was hand-picked by Insane Clown Posse and free to the public.[26] Halfway through the tour, Brian Jones of House of Krazees had a falling out with his band members. Jones left the group, forcing House of Krazees to quit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.120.39.39 (talk) 20:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)

nationwide tour section needs to be changed

{{editsemiprotected}}

it starts out saying two days after the ecw tour but there is no previous info on what that tour was can the line be deleted or what or when the tour was be explained or what they did on it . i made a new section about this already which was rapidly archived than i added the edit semi protect request days later after there was no change and the request its self was deleted from my post without the article being corrected. it seems strange that this was a featured article and no one has seen the same error i am seeing -here is what it says-
"Nationwide tour Two days after the ECW program, Insane Clown Posse began its rescheduled nationwide tour with House of Krazees and Myzery" (76.120.39.39 (talk) 10:29, 10 October 2010 (UTC))

Done Welcome. Your earlier post was on the 24th. On the 1st, it was archived. You noticed that on the 8th and evidently didn't see the "do not edit archive" banner as you proceded to edit the archive. Someone cleaned that up twelve hours later. Thanks for the observation that the first reference to ECW in the article isn't spelled out or wikilinked. I will add a spelled out, wikilinked version. Regards, Celestra (talk) 22:47, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Guardian interview / Christianity

There's a very interesting article in The Guardian about Insane Clown Posse, such as the influence of their religion on their music, and the band's background. It would be good if some of the editors here incorporated some of the information into this article. The Celestial City (talk) 00:10, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. This is relevant, and independently documented information quoted straight from the source. There's no reason it shouldn't be included. I see that Orlando098 put in a (rough) section regarding that topic but Juggalobrink removed it immediately. I don't have enough context on this issue to be making an update myself, but it does seem odd that it's not mentioned at all. NillaGoon (talk) 05:55, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

  • As I mentioned in the edit summary, the information is already mentioned in the article. It is the entire second paragraph in the "Lyrics and music" section. No new information was revealed in that article that hasn't already been revealed in the eight years since the song came out. Juggalobrink (talk) 13:31, 16 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not sure I can agree. The third paragraph almost says it, but stops short. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 08:56, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
The paragraph includes all reliable information. In the Guardian article, the group never calls themselves Evangelist Christians. The author is the one who suggests that they are. In fact, one of the group members has disputed the claim on his twitter account.Juggalobrink (talk) 13:00, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
That is incorrect. The paragraph explains about the Dark Carnival, but does not reveal that it is Christian allegory.
Whether they call themselves evangelists is interesting and worth reporting, but we should not feel limited by their self-identification. After all, they freely admit to intentionally concealing the Christian nature of their message for years, so we shouldn't be shocked if they reject this label now. It is not unusual for Christian bands to hide, downplay or deny this aspect of their music despite benefiting from it: look at Evanescence. What's important is that a reliable source says "Insane Clown Posse have this entire time secretly been evangelical Christians."
This is an open and shut case. If we're going to discuss their musical style, particularly the ideas behind it, we have no choice but to identify it as Christian evangelism. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:06, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, right, "Christian evangelism" with songs about mass murder, necrophilia, sex and drug use. Violent J on Twitter: "I haven't been to church since I was like 10. I don't even know if Shaggy's ever been to church" http://twitter.com/bigviolentj/status/27571693759 Obviously, ICP are not evangelical Christians, and the Guardian article is inaccurate.
Look, we've got two things here: a reliable journalistic source and your opinion. Which of the two should we give weight to? Wikipedia policy is painfully clear on this.
Now, if you want to add their denials, you are free to do so, but you are not free to remove the well-sourced statement that they use their music to evangelize Christianity. In fact, even if what you said is true, regarding their church attendance and claims of irreligiosity, none of it refutes the article. You can preach the gospel without ever having walked into a church. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:43, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I looked at the article again, and figured that it called them evangelists because they're evangelizing -- preaching the gospel -- rather than because they are Evangelical, so I removed that word. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
There is no opinion here. I have the word of the performers themselves stating that they are not evangelical Christians, and that they are barely religious. Shaggy 2 Dope did an interview where he said that he didn't follow any religion. Violent J, as quoted in the article, and on Twitter, says that the band isn't ultra-religious. ICP believe in God, but they are more spiritual than Christian, and the Dark Carnival, as stated in the official band biography, website, and numerous other reviews and sources is not about Christianity specifically, although the Shangri-La album refers to God (not Christ). This is not a POV issue, it's inaccurate and contradicts numerous other cited sources which contradict the claims made here. The Guardian calls ICP evangelical Christians because they didn't fully do the research. Stating that their albums are a metaphor for Christianity is not sourced anywhere other than the inaccurate Guardian article, which is clearly mistaken in reporting Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope as devoted Christians when they've said themselves that they are not that religious.

In fact, there are quite a few guidelines that speak against claiming individuals as being a part of a religion that the individuals themselves do not identify as:

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons#Remove unsourced or poorly sourced contentious material

Wikipedia:Neutral point of view

Wikipedia:No original research

The article didn't call them them evangelical Christians. although the Guardian used precisely that phrase. To avoid the confusion between Christians who evangelize (which fits) and Christians who are members of an Evangelical Christian sect (which doesn't), I removed the e-word entirely. They are, however, self-admitted Christians:

"But still, given that you were secretly Christian, are there any lyrics you now regret?"

There's a silence. "Yeah," Violent J says quietly.

Open and shut.
Now, the version you reverted simply says that the Dark Carnival mythology taught in the Joker's Cards is a metaphor for the Christian gospel. I think perhaps "allegory" is a better word, but regardless, this is also accurate and uncontroverted. Their song lyrics directly state that:

The carnival is GOD

And may all juggalos find him

We're not sorry if we tricked you.

Again, open and shut.
Given this, why are you edit-warring?
I suggest that you read the Guardian article for yourself, so that you can see that it is a reliable source that supports the above claim. Note that the fact that they're Christian is not particularly remarkable, even with the nature of their lyrics. Lots of people are Christian and not all of them talk the talk, much less walk the walk. The difference is that they wrote songs that evangelized Christianity, albeit stealthily. This is both surprising and highly notable.
I'm going to politely recommend that you revert your last change. If you don't do this with 24 hours, I will escalate the matter. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:49, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It's not "surprising", and the music and lyrics section discusses the spiritual themes and aspect of the group's lyrics, as does Dark Carnival (Insane Clown Posse). As I state both here and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Insane Clown Posse, it is contentious to edit the article in a way that makes the lyrics look like a metaphor or allegory for Christianity even though no such statements were ever made by the people who made these albums, and this is a statement involving living people which is contradicted by the people themselves, who state that they are not very religious, and one member doesn't even follow any religion. They made one reference to God in an album that came out in 2002. The article contains no new information in regards to the group's Spiritual message.

That's simply false. We have reliable sources that show otherwise. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Regardless of the out come of the "Christian" edit war, there should surely be mention of the Guardian article; since it has sparked such strong debate, the story its self is now relevant to the ICP article. At the time of writing, the Wikipedia article does not contain the words "christ", "christian", "jesus" nor "Guardian", nor is the Guardian article linked for a single reference. This screams to me that the facts are losing out to the fans in this edit war. --CheShA (talk) 08:46, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Yes, we absolutely must link to this article. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 10:10, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I agree, it is something that I wanted to do from the beginning. It was impossible to do when the edit would have been undone. Now that others agree that the article isn't reliable, we can add something alone the lines of "Jon Ronson, contributor to The Guardian, claims that the group's lyrics contains evangelicalist messages."Juggalobrink (talk) 13:24, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
It is simply a lie to claim that the article is not a reliable source. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:48, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Juggalobrink, I hope you are not using my comments above as evidence that "others agree that the article isn't reliable". I categorically do not agree that this article is unreliable; The Guardian is widely acknowledged as one of the single most reliable primary sources on the Internet. My comments were framed solely to get across the point that not linking to this article or mentioning the issues raised is simply dishonest. --CheShA (talk) 19:01, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
I'm not referring to you at all. I'm also not saying that the paper in not a reliable source. I'm saying that the author's claim that the group is evangelicalist christians is unsupported and disproved, thus making the author's claim false. Dylan Flaherty had been unwilling to discuss the issue previously, so no mention of the article could be made until the issue was resolved.Juggalobrink (talk) 20:03, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

A single unsupported op ed in a newspaper is not a gold star addition, in fact without support and when it is disputed it is not even a brass star. The writer of the op ed Jon_Ronson should be considered for his respect in this genre. The value of such writers opinions in editorials when strongly denied and rejected by the living subjects is valueless and requires removal.Off2riorob (talk) 20:14, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Except that it's not an op ed, it's an interview with ICP in which they affirm their status as stealth evangelists. What they say about the matter after that is interesting and worth printing, but does not undo their earlier statements. I suspect from your comments that you have not read the article, since you seem ignorant of its contents. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
That's a lie. The author of the article is the only one who refers to ICP as stealth evangelists, whereas, in the actual interview excerpts, ICP never make any such claim, and several other interviews, the official website, band biography and Twitter of Violent J state that ICP are not very religious, that their lyrics are not "Christian" (Violent J is Christian; Shaggy 2 Dope is not), and, besides that, the Shangri-La album and others only refer to God, not Christ. There is a Spiritual reference in the lyrics, but not a Christian reference. It should also be noted that the other individual behind ICP's music, Mike E. Clark, is an Atheist. The music of ICP was written and performed by three musicians, one of which is Christian, one who doesn't believe in any religion, and one who is an Atheist. That does not qualify ICP's music as stealth Christian evangelism or stealth Christianity, in addition to the fact that no ICP lyric refers to Christ, and that the people involved with this music have directly stated that they are not overtly religious, and that their music is not Christian.
Calling these demonstrated facts a lie is, of all things, a lie. First, Ron Jonson is both an investigative journalist and familiar with the music industry. He played in a band and also managed one. If he says they're Christian evangelists, this is notable and belongs in the article, no matter what off2riorob might imagine. Remember, the requirement for inclusion is relevance and verifiability, not truth. Whether you happen to agree doesn't matter one bit.
Of course, the claim is not false. We know this because ICP admits it over and over, even if they later spin or outright deny it. Here's a bit from a different but related newspaper article:
With “The Unveiling,” the 17th and final song on “The Wraith,” the group seemingly had closed the book on that saga, saying that the story had been about following God and the hope that the group’s fans (affectionately known as “juggalos” and “juggalettes”) would find God as well.
This speaks for itself: they concealed a religious message in otherwise vulgar and areligious music.
Bruce is completely candid about his motivations. He said:
“That’s the stuff that people are talking about on the streets. So in other words, to get attention, you have to speak their language,” he said. “You have to interest them, gain their trust, talk to them and show you’re one of them. You’re a person from the street and speak of your experiences. Then, at the end you can tell them God has helped me out like this, and it might transfer over, instead of just come straight out and just speak straight out of religion.”
Note how this direct quote includes an admission that he is trying to convince his listeners to follow his religion, which is precisely why he was described as an evangelist. If this is too subtle for you, consider:
"From the very beginning of our music, God is in there," Violent J says, "in hidden messages."
Hidden messages with God. No interpretation necessary. He just said it.
Bruce justifies concealing his message with the following argument:
"You had to gain everybody's attention," says Violent J. "You had to gain the entire world's trust and attention."
Again, painfully clear. When asked a question that mentions he was secretly Christian (quoted above), Bruce just answers it, not denying the premise. This makes it hard to believe that his religious message is not Christian. And when he explains the meaning of "The Riddle Box", he gives a low-brow version of Pascal's gambit.
Now, it's not as if I'm synthesizing this as bit of original research. It's all in an article in a respectable newspaper by a respectable journalist, based on interviewing Joe and Joe. Against this, we have only the reluctance of a few fans, who seem uncomfortable with the fact that they've been listening to Christian music all along.
At this point, I do not see any surviving arguments for excluding the article and giving it a prominent place. I am quite willing to move this to dispute resolution if you remain uncooperative. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Christ is never explicitly mentioned in ICP's lyrics, and only Violent J is a Christian, and neither member is very religious. This is backed up by multiple reliable sources. You can't add biographical content that is only stated by one person and is contradicted by the word of the people that the content is referring to. The "reluctance of fans" bit is bullshit. We have the word of the songwriters themselves, saying that they are not very religious, and that their lyrical content isn't Christian. Ron Jonson did not do his research, and took things out of context in order to paint ICP as "secret Christians" in direct contradiction to what they've actually said about their own religious views and music: after Shangri-La came out.
This directly contradicts Bruce.
He was asked,"But still, given that you were secretly Christian, are there any lyrics you now regret?" He responded in the affirmative, which means he both regrets some of the lyrics and he accepts the given, which is that he was secretly Christian.
Once again, your claims are demonstrably false. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
Again, Bruce is Christian, Shaggy 2 Dope isn't, Mike E. Clark is an Atheist, and ICP is not a religious group. And there was nothing secret about ICP's religious views. Every album they made since they began their career has thanked God.

Didnt Bruce say the Carnival was a mixture of Christian and Muslim or was that original research? Portillo (talk) 23:21, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I haven't seen any mention of this. But if there's a reliable source, then we should include this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:50, 18 October 2010 (UTC)
Given the contradictory information, WP:BLP and WP:UNDUE, I'd keep it out. We don't include information just because we have a source for it - other policies and guidelines still apply. --Ronz (talk) 02:47, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
If there's contradictory information, that means we can't exclude either version. The source for this information is the ICP itself, including the statements its members made during an interview. We can't ignore this. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:48, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
The movie Death Racers has Violent J referencing 72 virgins upon entrance to Shangri-La (Heaven) - but it was a joke in a fictional movie written by someone else, so it doesn't reflect ICP's actual religious views.

After rereading the Guardian article and reviewing Violent J's twitter feed, I have to agree with Juggalobrink that the Guardian article seems a bit tendentious and shouldn't be classified as objective reporting. The direct quotes from ICP only support the general theme that ICP has included material of a religious nature in their music. The more inflammatory material about ICP "tricking Juggalos into becoming Christians" [my summary, not a direct quote] is editorial and clearly disputed by Violent J. Nevertheless, the "Guardian incident" is now part of ICP history, and it's clearly a topic of interest. What's the objection to including something like "In October 2010 article, Guardian reporter Jon Ronson claimed that...However, Violent J disputes many of his assertions"? NillaGoon (talk) 18:53, 19 October 2010 (UTC)

While I agree that there needs to be some mention, I do want to point out that the notion of trickery did not originate with that article. Rather, the article quotes one of their own songs as saying, "We're not sorry if we tricked you." Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:58, 19 October 2010 (UTC)
But the author makes the assumption that ICP were trying to trick people into becoming Christians, when their own religious views and the actual overall lyrical themes don't add up to a Christian viewpoint, being that only God is mentioned, not Christ, and that only one of the group's members is Christian. The article doesn't reveal any new information, really, but asserts a new viewpoint that is contradicted by the members of the band itself and numerous other sources.
Wisdomtenacityfocus (^^^), your point is that the Guardian article is bogus. That's probably true. However, that doesn't mean the article should be suppressed from Wikipedia. It doesn't appear to meet the Wikipedia definition of an unreliable source. The Guardian is a legitimate journalistic outlet and it is a fact that Jon Ronson made certain allegations. It is also a fact that ICP members dispute those claims. (I think we all agree on this much.) On the other hand, "we shouldn't lend any credibility to this bogus article" is a personal judgment.
I'm not claiming that every random crackpot theory that someone succeeds in publishing deserves a Wikipedia writeup. However, the fact that this discussion has been so active and has spread to the notice board suggests that the issue is timely and relevant enough to be of interest to quite a few people. Therefore, it merits mention. NillaGoon (talk) 01:55, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I wonder if the disagreement here is over the details. In particular, while it seems clear that ICP were intentionally hiding religious lessons in their song lyrics, there seems to be some dispute over how "Christian" these messages were.
I'll be the first to grant that these people are hardly theologians, but both were raised Christian, so we would not be crazy to expect them to have a Christian conception of God, however irreligious they claim to be. This is certainly supported by the general content, which focuses on salvation vs. damnation, a uniquely Christian theme. In combination with Bruce admitting to being a secret Christian, it doesn't seem as if Jon Ronson's allegations are patently false. They're debatable, but that should not stop us from reporting them, especially if we present a balanced view.
Rather than continuing to discuss this entirely in the abstract, let's look at the sentence that keeps getting added and removed. My version reads:
This has been revealed as a metaphor for the gospel of Christianity.
Juggalobrink's instead says:
The Guardian contributor Jon Ronson claims that the group's lyrics contain evangelicalist messages.[1]
The first one is missing a reference to the Guardian article and is perhaps too explicitly about Christianity. The second makes it sound as if the lyrics don't contain religious messages, which is misleading. I suggest we go with something like:
The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are sermons urging the listeners to avoid eternal damnation.[2]
How would you make this better? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:58, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't even think Jon Ronson identifies ICP's lyrics as "sermons". I just wonder if Black Sabbath qualify as evangelicals by Ronson's standards. (unsigned by Wisdomtenacityfocus)
First of all, please sign with ~~~~.
In any case, at least your objection is more specific, in that you don't like the the term "sermon". Although it does seem to be accurate, I can try to work with that. Consider:
The Dark Carnival has been revealed as a metaphor for God, so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation.[3]
Comments? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:30, 20 October 2010 (UTC)
By using the word "reveal," you're suggesting that the author's opinion is fact. You have to note that it is the author's opinion, and not a proven fact, especially after it has been disproven. Secondly, your part about "so the lessons are about repenting so as to avoid eternal damnation" is not mentioned in the article at all. However, it has been mentioned in numerous other articles and is already mentioned briefly in the "Lyrics and music" section, and in more detail throughout the Dark Carnival article. So to sum it up, the statement can't mislead the reader to believe the opinion as fact, and should contain material mentioned in the article. That is why I wrote that previous statement, but another idea is something like "The Guardian contributor Jon Ronson suggests that the group's lyrics contain messages of evangelicalist Christianity.[1]" Juggalobrink (talk) 12:50, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
If you're going to participate in this discussion, you absolutely must do your research and then remain intellectually honest. Anyone who read the article knows that ICP has freely admitted to initially concealing the meaning, only to explain it years later. Likewise, the article quotes Bruce's own explanation of "The Riddle Box" and "The Ringmaster", using somewhat smaller words to explain the concept of eternal damnation.
There's no guesswork here. There is absolutely no question that their lyrics contain religious messages. This is not my interpretation or some reporter's interpretation: ICP freely admits it. Any attempt to spin this as "someone claims" is a violation of NPOV.
If I were like ICP, I'd say you're lying to me and pissing me off. As it happens, I'm not, so I will use much more tactful words to get the same general sentiment across. Ultimately, you are allowed to have your own opinion, but not your own facts. When your stated opinion is based on claims that are trivially refutable, it undermines their weight. If you can't make a credible argument, you cannot contribute to the consensus.Dylan Flaherty (talk) 13:10, 21 October 2010 (UTC)
Could you discuss changes without insulting/making fun of the subject and its fans? It would help your case. WTF (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Please grow a sense of humor about this; the entire discussion is absurd. I sincerely hope nobody I know googles my name and finds out I'm involved in debating about the religious evangelism of ICP. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Question: Is there any reliable source other than the single Guardian opinion piece that makes this claim? If not, it's like to be undue weight to mention a single person's viewpoint. Shell babelfish 14:13, 21 October 2010 (UTC)

  • Guardian is the only RS to identify the lyrical content and ICP themselves as Christians. WTF (talk) 00:53, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Shell, please don't let Wisdomtenacityfocus mislead you. The Guardian's relevancy is not that one of its reporters has drawn these conclusions, but that they interviewed ICP and printed their answers. It is ICP that is the source of the claim. Joseph Bruce himself explained the meaning of his lyrics and admitted to being a secret Christian.
I would politely suggest that, rather than taking Wisdomtenacityfocus' word on it or mine, you read for yourself. Please look at the article, as well as the debate above, and I'm convinced you'll recognize this as not being undue. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:04, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

To be clear, we have a primary source in the ICP's own statements and we avoid original research by referencing them through a reliable secondary source, so we don't actually need any more citations. However, if we wanted some more, we could use this, that or even the other one. There's a great deal of buzz on the Internet about the Guardian article, and some newspapers simply reference it, I chose the trio above because they add some content of their own.

To repeat:

  1. We know ICP has religious messages because they admit it, both in their lyrics and in interviews.
  2. We are entitled to use these primary sources due to the reliable secondary source that combines them in one article.
  3. We also have other articles, to show that this one was not a fluke.

Open and shut case for inclusion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC) Dylan Flaherty (talk) 04:02, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

Asserting because the group did not refute an interviewers question makes it an assertion of fact is a step to far in original research. We are not investigative reporters and are not supported to do that in guidelines, information we add to articles about living people should be well known and cites from multiple sources, this Guardian article does not fulfill any of that, just report the simple well know indisputable stuff, this is not an expose. Off2riorob (talk) 10:33, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Off2riorob, thank you for commenting, but I have to say that your argument does not match the facts or logically add up.
In fact, we don't need to be investigative reporters because we Jon Ronson is one. He interviewed these people and laid out everything for us, removing any need for original research on our part. Most importantly, we absolutely do not need multiple sources when it is undisputed that ICP said what the article quotes them as saying. When Joseph Bruce says outright that his song lyrics contain religious messages, that's that. And if that wasn't enough, you're ignoring the fact that we have cites other than ICP and Guardian.
In short, the premises of your argument are demonstrably false, so the the conclusion does not follow. Nobody, not even ICP, has denied the statement that you reverted. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 11:19, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Okay, the articles from the Guardian and the Columbia pretty clearly state that ICP has come out and said that this whole time the message has been about god. The other two sources are less convincing - they seem to be people's opinions of the claims vs. the lyrics. The next question would be, is there any reason that this topic isn't already covered by the second paragraph of the Lyrics and music section? If so, would it make sense to rework that paragraph a bit to include a better overview of the sources available? Shell babelfish 12:28, 22 October 2010 (UTC)
Seems reasonable, it is already covered there anyways , doesn't seem to be anything really new, just some john opines this and Harry opines that and the band denied what john and harry said. I wouldn't say such opines are worthy of much expansion.Off2riorob (talk) 12:37, 22 October 2010 (UTC)

I know this is probably going to make multiple people see red, but I've done my best to summarize all the points of view above in as NPOV a way as possible. It's several paragraphs (two translocated from "lyrics and music"), so I created a new Spirituality subsection within Style. The one perspective stated above (and by more than one person, I would add) that's not reflected in the current text is "this topic doesn't merit additional discussion." (We can get into additional discussion of this point, but for now I'll just say I disagree.) Before we get into another edit war, could I just ask that anyone who disputes any of the edits on a factual or referential basis please comment here when adjusting? NillaGoon (talk) 01:30, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally happy with the changes you've made here. Except for the one sentence that you marked as needing references, the material is well-cited. It's also organized and well-written. I'm a bit confused about how he can say it was just the one song when he's also admitted that another song also counted, or how he accounts for the entire arc of albums with a shared religious message. I'd be hesitant to offer a rebuttal, as that would be OR, but it should be ok to juxtapose conflicting claims by the same person so that people can decide for themselves. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, Violent J does seem to be backpedaling a bit, doesn't he? On the other hand, I can understand why ICP would be alarmed by the Guardian article. I doubt that we could be any more specific without getting into speculation. NillaGoon (talk) 06:35, 23 October 2010 (UTC)
I think there's more we can do here, but I'd it's pretty good right now, so I'd like to revisit the following line from the lead:
The songs of Insane Clown Posse center thematically on the mythology of the Dark Carnival, which the duo claim is a spiritual force that has revealed a series of stories known as Joker's Cards. These stories each offer a specific lesson designed to change the "evil ways" of listeners before "the end consumes us all."
ICP has said, in as many words, that the "spiritual force" is God, and they have not backpeddled on that admission. On this basis, I recommend we change it to:
The songs of Insane Clown Posse center thematically on the mythology of the Dark Carnival, which is God. It is told through a series of stories called Joker's Cards, each of which offers a specific lesson designed to change the "evil ways" of listeners before "the end consumes us all."
Do you think these are good changes and do you have any suggestions on how to improve upon them? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:38, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thy Unveiling does say explicitly that "the Carnival is God", so the motivation for the change seems pretty clear. I can understand your frustration with those who are skirting the inclusion of ICP's own words; if ICP isn't the ultimate arbiter, who is?
On the other hand, it also seems pretty clear to me that the statement requires interpretation. It can't mean that the Dark Carnival is _actually_ God. That doesn't make sense -- I don't think ICP believe that God is literally a formless limbo filled with carnival rides and traveling circus people. More likely, "the Carnival is God" means that you are supposed to interpret the Carnival as a metaphor for God's final judgment. It's just one aspect of God. I'm not basing this on any particular theological model, just on what I understand people to mean when they say enigmatic things like "the Carnival is God."
The point of Thy Unveiling was not to get specific about the exact nature of God or the Dark Carnival. They didn't do that. The point was to clarify that ICP believe that something analogous to the Dark Carnival _actually exists_ and that people will really go there to be judged after they die.
So I have to say, I prefer the original wording above. It's better because it describes the Dark Carnival in functional terms ("a spiritual force that...") rather than by simply equating it with "God," a vague word that people will interpret in a variety of ways. Just because ICP say "the Carnival is God" doesn't mean that we can simply repeat that phrase here as if it had a specific meaning. We can quote ICP as having made this statement, but I don't think we should be using the phrase ourselves. NillaGoon (talk) 03:08, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Nilla, I think you're right about it being analogous as opposed to literal. I was trying too hard not to add my own interpretation. But, as you say, it's not that God is a circus but that the Dark Carnival represents a Christian understanding of the afterlife in which we are judged by God and (very much oversimplified!) are either rewarded or punished. In fact, Bruce explains, "Would it be God, or would it be the devil? Only you truly know the answer to your own riddle box." Note how he still talks in analogies, using "riddle box" to refer to our eternal fate.
Given this, the original text is being a bit coy. It's not merely some anonymous "spiritual force", which could mean anything or nothing; it's Jesus Christ, our Lord. Likewise, "evil ways" must be understood as sin, and "the end [that] consumes us all" is unambiguously death. It seems strange for us to speak in riddles and metaphors when the authors have kindly explained their meaning and intent.
Here's another attempt:
The songs of Insane Clown Posse center thematically on the mythology of the Dark Carnival, which is a metaphor for God's final judgment. It is told through a series of stories called Joker's Cards, each of which offers a specific lesson designed to change the [sin|"evil ways"] of listeners before "the end consumes us all."
Feedback? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 03:59, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Your introduction tempts me to quibble (it's not at all clear to me that by "God" ICP means the mainstream Christian Jesus -- is there any evidence for this?), but your suggested wording doesn't seem unreasonable. I would suggest not cross-linking to final judgment even though I think you were just incorporating the link I had mentioned. On closer reading, final judgment is a way more specific concept than I think ICP had in mind, and its meaning isn't even agreed upon by the various Christian denominations. In Christian terms, ICP's Dark Carnival seems more akin to particular judgment. But really, the plain old English "God's judgment" seems to incorporate everything we know for sure. How about:
The songs of Insane Clown Posse center thematically on the mythology of the Dark Carnival, a metaphoric limbo in which the lives of the dead are judged by God. The Dark Carnival is elaborated through a series of stories called Joker's Cards, each of which offers a specific lesson designed to change the "evil ways" of listeners before "the end consumes us all." (unsigned by NillaGoon)
I like it. It deftly avoids overcommitment to specific theologies while also avoiding terminal vagueness, and it reads well. If you don't mind, I'm going to insert it into the article now, with due credit to you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 16:47, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Very well written NillaGoon. Thanks for the help. Juggalobrink (talk) 02:40, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't think that Ronson's assertion of the band containing Christian messages is notable considering that he is the only person to assert a Christian message in any RS. Elsewhere, commentators note references to God, but Ronson is the only person to claim ICP as having a connection to evangelical Christianity. WTF (talk) 21:00, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It is noted that Ronson is the only one who is making the claim. I'm treating the situation much as you would a review of an album. You acknowledge the author's opinion. It is noted that the claim is disputed by the group directly after the quote. The section was fine as it was before, and your revision leaves major gaps. Maybe you could to rewrite your version here and we can help contribute? But I think you have to include Ronson's opinion, and report it as such.Juggalobrink (talk) 21:09, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Actually, ICP is making the claim. Ronson is simply reporting what they said during the interview. The ICP is authoritative about their own stated intent. In other words, if ICP says these are religious messages, they are a reliable source on the matter. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:32, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
He's referring to the claim that they are evangelical Christians, not that there is religous messages in the music. Religion (ambiguous) and evangelical Christianity (specific) are two different things. Either way, Ronson's claim will be mentioned. The exact phrasing of the section is open for discussion.Juggalobrink (talk) 21:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
There's some confusion here. It is undisputed that Bruce is Christian, and likely that Utsler is as well. It is undisputed that they concealed Christian messages in their music. Together, this adds up to evangelizing for Christianity, but it does not mean that they are Christians of an Evanglical denomination, or even that they are particularly religious. This is why Ronson used the term "evangelical", not "Evangelical".
Apparently, the ICP are not particularly clear on this distinction, which explains what would otherwise be non-sequiturs on their part. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 22:34, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
How is it likely that Utsler is Christian? Because you say so? And how does being Christian make you evangelical Christians? And how is it undisputed that "they concealed Christian messages in their music"? It is undisputed that they concealed religious messages in their music. You still seem to be confusing Christianity with religion. Judaism, Islam, and Hinduism are all examples of religions. Both the Hindu and Buddist views of Karma can be described to fit the Dark Carnival just as easy as Divine judgment. Wikipedia is neutral, and as such you can't just add your personal beliefs. Since they only says "religious messages" and "God," and cite no specific religion, you can't just assume it is Christianity. There is also no reason to even debate this. Ronson's claim is mentioned in the article, and the user had a problem with it being presented as fact. It wasn't, so problem solved.Juggalobrink (talk) 23:51, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
With all due respect, you are being argumentative in a nonproductive manner. Please calm down and address the issue. Disagreement is of little value if you do not first understand what you are disagreeing with. In specific, please read what I said about the difference between evangelizing Christianity and being an Evangelical Christian. Thank you. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Just for comparison, the page on C.S. Lewis's Narnia series includes some beautifully written material on the Christian themes in those stories. It's fair and informative and conveys a clear sense of Lewis's and others' perspectives. ICP provides an order of magnitude less information to work with, so the Narnia page isn't a direct model. But it does show that Wikipedia can address religious references in art without creating a mess, even when it's clear that the artist did not set out to create an explicitly Christian work. NillaGoon (talk) 23:15, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

I admit I haven't read the article on Lewis, but wasn't Lewis intentionally hiding the Christian themes in an attempt to be more persuasive? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:30, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Take a look at the section - it addresses this issue pretty directly. (Lewis's claim: no, reality: ?, my take: probably not). It also talks about Lewis becoming "a pawn in America's culture wars". Potentially explosive stuff, but very well handled. NillaGoon (talk) 23:39, 24 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks, I'll look at it. It would be good to have a model to follow. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:51, 25 October 2010 (UTC)

Added refs to MySpace pages that putatively belong to Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope. Can anyone confirm that these pages do in fact belong to ICP? Also, I copy edited Violent J's tweet quoted later in the section. Is that legitimate or should it be left exactly as tweeted as a matter of principle? It's all obvious stuff like "it's" instead of "its" and "holy rollers" instead of "holly rollers". NillaGoon (talk) 23:03, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, we can't meddle with an exact quote, even to correct obvious grammatical or spelling errors. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:15, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
I removed your references to the myspaces as neither member has an individual myspace. Those are fake. I also found an article written for Christianity Today here disputing Ronson's claim. I don't have time to add it now, so I'll try to put it in if I have time tommorrow. When quoting somebody's written text, you leave all spelling as they spelled it. You don't actually need that entire quote for the point. I'll touch up that part tommorrow and post the revision here before adding it to the page.Juggalobrink (talk) 23:57, 26 October 2010 (UTC)
Thanks Jb - I reverted the copy editing. You can trim as you see fit, but what's there now is the original text. NillaGoon (talk) 00:08, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
No problem. Here is the updated version. I've removed the refs in this post just so it doesn't flood the talk page.
The themes of God's presence and the final judgment of individuals are explored in multiple Insane Clown Posse songs. The group has confirmed in interviews that several songs include an explicitly spiritual message which serve to warn of the ultimate consequences of immoral behavior. In an interview with Craig Markley, Joseph Utsler stated that "God is in your heart [...] In my definition, it doesn’t matter what creed, religion, or group you belong to. If you’re doing what’s right and are a good person, then you're right with God." In another interview with Metro Times writer Serene Dominic, Joseph Bruce has stated "We're not an ultra-religious group. I don't go to church or anything. I like to believe in God."
Several journalists have commented on the apparent conflict between the group's sexualized and often violent lyrics and their stated spiritual message. In a June 2010 interview with The Columbian's Alan Sculley, Bruce explained, "[Sex and violence is] the stuff that people are talking about on the streets...to get attention, you have to speak their language. You have to interest them, gain their trust, talk to them and show you're one of them. You're a person from the street and speak of your experiences. Then at the end you can tell them God has helped me out like this and it might transfer over instead of just come straight out and just speak straight out of religion." He also stated that "The ending of the Joker Cards, the way we looked at it, was death. Heaven and hell. That's up to each and every juggalo [to decide]."
In October 2010, Jon Ronson of The Guardian characterized the group as "having this entire time secretly been evangelical Christians [who have] only been pretending to be brutal and sadistic to trick their fans into believing in God." Joseph Bruce disputed the idea, writing that "I think [it's] crazy how some press say we're a christian band and act like we're all religious [...] I'm proud that we believe in God but I haven't been to church since I was like 10. I don't even know if [Utsler has] ever been to church!" Christianity Today writer Mark Moring also challenged Ronson's characterization, writing that "What's stunning is how quickly -- and ignorantly -- so many media outlets immediately start labeling [the group] "evangelical Christians." [...] The guys in ICP haven't used the word "Christian" or "evangelical" [...] so let's not call them anything that they're not claiming for themselves."
Discussion welcome.Juggalobrink (talk) 19:24, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Excellent addition from Moring, and the other touch-ups look great as well. I'm less clear on the motivation behind some of the rearrangements, though. If you look at this section from a structural or outline perspective, it seems like there are really five topics that are or should be addressed:
  1. The music contains messages about God
  2. Timeline and citations as to when and how this became clear
  3. But they mostly sing about slappin' bitches! How can this be?
  4. Ronson's "evangelical Christianity" article and responses
  5. What ICP actually believe
Currently, #2 isn't in there at all, at least in this section. It seems like at least a reference to the Wraith page is needed since everyone seems to agree that this was the point at which ICP made their explicit "Hey, we're singin' about God!" declaration.
There are some constraints (e.g., #1 obviously has to be first), but these topics could potentially be addressed in various orders. However, I do like #5 at the very end because #3 and #4 are both investigations of this topic. It's a traditional thesis/antithesis/synthesis pattern. The questions and theories should come first, with the "answer" at the end. This is also going to be the natural thought progression for readers, I think ("Spiritual messages? What kind of spiritual messages?"). The "God is in your heart", "not an ultra-religious group", and "heaven and hell" quotes all seem to fit best as part of #5 to me. NillaGoon (talk) 20:25, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Here is the new update. I kept Bruce's twitter remarks directly after Ronson's mention as it was a response to his article. The only thing that I think might need improvement is the last paragraph, as it seems a little light. It gets the job done though.
The themes of God's presence and the final judgment of individuals are explored in multiple Insane Clown Posse songs. Throughout their career, the group has used parables of their Dark Carnival mythology to reveal spiritual messages which serve to warn of the ultimate consequences of immoral behavior. In 2002, the group released the album The Wraith: Shangri-La in which they explicitly revealed that the hidden message of their music was always to follow God. Joseph Bruce remarked that "The ending of the Joker Cards, the way we looked at it, was death. Heaven and hell. That's up to each and every juggalo [to decide]."
Several journalists have commented on the apparent conflict between the group's sexualized and often violent lyrics and their stated spiritual message. In a June 2010 interview with The Columbian's Alan Sculley, Bruce explained, "[Sex and violence is] the stuff that people are talking about on the streets...to get attention, you have to speak their language. You have to interest them, gain their trust, talk to them and show you're one of them. You're a person from the street and speak of your experiences. Then at the end you can tell them God has helped me out like this and it might transfer over instead of just come straight out and just speak straight out of religion."
In October 2010, Jon Ronson of The Guardian characterized the Insane Clown Posse as "having this entire time secretly been evangelical Christians [who have] only been pretending to be brutal and sadistic to trick their fans into believing in God." Joseph Bruce disputed the idea, writing "I think [it's] crazy how some press say we're a christian band and act like we're all religious [...] I'm proud that we believe in God but I haven't been to church since I was like 10. I don't even know if [Utsler has] ever been to church!" Christianity Today writer Mark Moring also challenged Ronson's characterization, writing that "What's stunning is how quickly -- and ignorantly -- so many media outlets immediately start labeling [the group] "evangelical Christians." [...] The guys in ICP haven't used the word "Christian" or "evangelical" [...] so let's not call them anything that they're not claiming for themselves."
In a 2009 interview with the Metro Times, Joseph Bruce commented that "We're not an ultra-religious group. I don't go to church or anything. I like to believe in God." Joseph Utsler stated n a 2002 interview with Craig Markley that "God is in your heart [...] In my definition, it doesn’t matter what creed, religion, or group you belong to. If you’re doing what’s right and are a good person, then you're right with God."Juggalobrink (talk) 22:37, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Very nice. The last paragraph seems fine to me as it is, but to give more of a sense closure perhaps you could say Bruce "summarized" or "explained the group's outlook" instead of just "commented". NillaGoon (talk) 22:50, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
Thank you. I've updated the article now.Juggalobrink (talk) 23:19, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm generally happy with these edits, but I'm concerned about undue emphasis on Mark Moring's demonstrably false claims. Moring wrote:

Because nowhere do Violent J. and Shaggy 2 Dope, the two guys who make up the shock-rap group, say they're "Christians," much less "evangelicals."
The guys in ICP haven't used the word "Christian" or "evangelical" -- at least not anywhere I've read it -- so let's not call them anything that they're not claiming for themselves.

This is the same person who claimed to have read the Guardian article, in which Bruce acknowledges being "secretly Christian". Likewise, he conflates the two meanings of "evangelical".

I can only conclude that Moring is illiterate, dishonest or incompetently sloppy. We should not quote his passionate but clueless defense without immediately balancing it. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 01:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not an ICP scholar, but as far as I can tell, Moring is correct. ICP allowed Ronson to refer to them as Christian without correction, but at least in recent history, they do not appear to have used the words Christian or evangelical in reference to themselves. And Moring's larger point is certainly accurate: look at the Washington Post article he cites - there's a poll right there on the page that asks in big blue letters "Were ICP serious in their assertion that they are evangelical Christians?" They never asserted any such thing, and Moring is right to call the WaPo on it.

But let's say for the sake of argument that both Bruce and Utsler do consider themselves Christian. That still does not make them "evangelical Christians", even with a lowercase 'e'. To be evangelical Christians, they would have to evangelize, you know, Christianity. As Juggalobrink and others have pointed out, the idea of a judgmental God who punishes the wicked is found in many religious traditions and so is not specific enough to be denoted as "Christianity."

Personally, I would go even further than this. It seems to me that Utsler's statement that "If you’re doing what’s right and are a good person, then you're right with God" is at odds with the tenets of most Christian sects. Generally speaking, Christianity holds that people are inherently tainted by sin (either through original sin or through their own weakness; see Romans 3:23) and must accept the grace of Jesus in order to be redeemed in God's eyes and escape punishment (Romans 11:6; Titus 3:5; John 14:6). I'm not challenging Utsler's right to call himself a Christian (if indeed he does). I'm just making the more limited claim that someone who endorses this doctrine is not promoting what would generally be viewed as Christianity per se.

Most likely, these guys have their own rather idiosyncratic theology. You said it yourself, Dylan - they're not theologians. Why label them? NillaGoon (talk) 07:25, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

As it happens, I'd removed "evangelical" on my own, because of those ambiguities. Moring's point about some journalists taking that term too literally has some validity, but is undermined by the fact that he made the same error, confusing evangelizing with being an Evangelical. They're guilty of rehashing the Guardian article without understanding it, and he's guilty of bashing it without understanding it. Our job is to avoid these errors.
Keep in mind that, while I do not wish to term them as evangelical Christians, due to the near certainty of confusion, it's not actually inaccurate. What ICP evangelized was characteristically, if not exclusively, Christian. They focused on a core message. Choosing to preach on a single element of the faith is not an unusual evangelistic technique. For example, the LDS famously ran commercials evangelizing select moral lessons without talking about Jesus or salvation.
As for whether ICP is Christian, it seems clear that at least half of it is, which is sufficient to characterize the message as Christian. Let me give you an analogy. Imagine that I asked you whether, "given that you were secretly a spy for America", you regret some of your actions (such as bashing America publicly). If you say yes, you are admitting to the regret, and also to having secretly been an American spy.
It's really just that simple. While you would, of course, be entirely free to later deny it or suggest you were misunderstood, that would not undo the first utterance. In the case of Bruce, we have him admitting to being a (once-)secret Christian, and that's that. Off-hand, I don't remember an actual denial amid the back-peddling, bu even if it's there, so what? Having said that, rather than characterize him as Christian, I would rather speak of his message.
I think you're quite right that Bruce and Utsler have ideosyncratic views, but Moring inserted at least one foot firmly in his own mouth, if not both. We can use him for the parts he didn't completely miss the ball on, or we can include the bad parts so long as we balance them with a refutation. Given the difficulty of avoiding improper synthesis in attempting the latter, I suggest the former. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:59, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
You cannot continue to remove sections of the article as you please. Any further attempts will be considered vandalism.Juggalobrink (talk) 11:31, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Brink, I absolutely can and will remove statements that are not properly sourced. This is a biography of living people, so we must err on the side of caution. Claiming that my discretion is tantamount to vandalism is itself uncivil, and I will not hesitate to report you if you try to intimidate me into allowing unacceptable statements. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 18:05, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

One of the challenges to editing this article is the frequent attempt to move all discussion away from this talk page. Instead of addressing the factualness of my argument, Juggalobrink went off to BLP to complain. This sort of forum-shopping only serves to dilute discussion and bring in people who have not done the necessary research to come to sound conclusions. It is nearly as bad as Juggalobrink's repeated claim that any disagreement with him is tantamount to vandalism.

I am tempted to just copy all of the new comments from BLP, but I don't feel comfortable moving other people's words. So what I'm going to do is to move my own to right below this and encourage others to do the same. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:51, 29 October 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest not cross-posting material -- usually it just creates a mess. I don't know if this is an official Wikipedia recommendation, though.
I posted in BLP because the issues at hand are really pretty simple and seem like they could be resolved according to general principles and processes if we could obtain a review from some folks with Wikipedian expertise in this area.
I don't like the way that we've chased away most of the other contributors to this page with our weeks-long nitpicking. It's time to wrap this up; the competing viewpoints are as clearly delineated as they'll ever be. NillaGoon (talk) 05:45, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
I don't know about you, but I can't discuss one issue on three pages at the same time without repeating myself, so I'd rather we stick to this one page. Now that we're here, let's do that wrapping up thing you mentioned. Do you have any response about Moring? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 07:56, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Case in point: I just now found your comment on BLPN and responded there. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:08, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

WTF, I'm reverting your removal of "I think [it's] crazy how some press say we're a christian band and act like we're all religious" again, in what I hope is the friendliest possible way. As far as I can tell, this quote is ICP's only direct response to the "they are a Christian band" meme, so it seems like an important quote to me. NillaGoon (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Moved back from BLP

I agree with Nilla about the derivative reporting, and I would welcome using the Christianity Today article by paraphrase so that we can mention this. However, that same article makes factual errors, which Nilla unfortunately repeats here, and we cannot include those as-is.
In specific, as I explained in some detail on the talk page, with quotes, at least one of the duo acknowledges being once-secretly Christian and there is no doubt that they included religious messages in their songs, which counts as evangelism of Christian themes without making them Evangelical Christians, as such. The error in the me-too articles is that they missed this distinction. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 12:45, 29 October 2010 (UTC)
  • Violent J never stated that there was a secret Christian message or evangelism in their lyrics. Jon Ronson's article is biased and takes things out of context. WTF (talk) 20:03, 30 October 2010 (UTC)
  1. ^ a b Jon Ronson (2010-10-09). "Insane Clown Posse: And God created controversy". Retrieved 15 October 2010.
  2. ^ Jon Ronson (2010-10-09). "Insane Clown Posse: And God created controversy". Retrieved 15 October 2010.
  3. ^ Jon Ronson (2010-10-09). "Insane Clown Posse: And God created controversy". Retrieved 15 October 2010.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Insane_Clown_Posse/Archive_5&oldid=1142352410"