Talk:Insane Clown Posse/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Mark Moring

I believe that this edit violates BLP.

The text it reinserted comes from Mark Moring, who writes for Christianity Today, which is an Evangelical Christian periodical founded by Billy Graham to counter the mainline Protestant paper, The Christian Century. As such, the periodical has a vested interest in protecting the reputation of Evangelicals.

The article is an opinion piece that is labeled as a blog entry; blogs are not RS. It is subtitled "Why is the media so quick to label these clowns as 'evangelical Christians'?", and is primarily written with the intent of disassociating the ICP from Evanglicals such as himself.

As I freely admitted earlier, part of what he writes is factually true: some of the journalists who wrote articles in reaction to the Jon Ronson one in the Guardian have misinterpreted the phrase "evangelical Christian" in such a way as to blur the distinction between being a Christian who evangelizes and being an Evangelical. I agree that this should be stated in the article, if we can reliably source it.

Unfortunately, not only is Moring not a reliable source due to the bias and blog issues, but he is guilty of very sloppy journalism that undercuts his credibility. I can't say whether it's dishonesty or incompetence, but he pretends not to have read the part of the Guardian article where Joseph Bruce admits to having been secretly Christian.

I am going to cross-post this now to WP:BLPN, but I'd really prefer it if the conversation could continue here.

P.S. Full disclosure: the person who twice reverted the article to reinsert the dubious lines left edit comments claiming I was a vandal. This bit of uncivil dishonesty was corrected elsewhere and should not factor into our discussion about the merits of the lines themselves. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 00:20, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

• The statement that ICP are not evangelicals is accurate, and backed up by Violent J and Shaggy 2 Dope themselves. WTF (talk) 20:02, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

Wis, I think I conceded that they're not Evanglicals. I can see, however, how singing songs with religious messages could be seen as evangelical, in that it's a form of evangelizing.

Nonetheless, that's not the main issue here. As I see it, the main issue is that Moring is biased and sloppy. He doesn't understand or highlight the distinction I just mentioned, which leads him into making demonstrably false statements. For example, we've all read the same interview in which Bruce admits to having been secretly Christian, but Moring denies this flatly. He's incompetent.

For these reasons, he is not a reliable source. He's just an Evangelical apologist who finds the vulgarity of the ICP embarrassing. He's throwing them under the bus to preserve the reputation of his own religion. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 20:06, 30 October 2010 (UTC)

For the record, I have no objection to NillaGoon's recent edit. I think it does a good job restoring as much of the Moring material as we can use, while sticking to the details instead of risking premature synthesis.

One concern is that it doesn't make the basis of the misunderstanding sufficiently clear. In other words, it doesn't explain about the two meanings of "evangelical", and how the me-too articles completely missed that bit of subtlety. Having said this, it's not clear if we have a good reliable source for this. Has anyone found anything relevant? Dylan Flaherty (talk) 21:47, 1 November 2010 (UTC)

RfC: Is article in Spirituality section reliable?

Is the Christianity Today article in the Spirituality section reliable? A consensus was attempted to be made both on this talk page and at Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons/Noticeboard#Insane Clown Posse, but only the same three people have responded. Juggalobrink (talk) 14:09, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

Here's a direct link to the article. And for reference, the Guardian article he's referring to. NillaGoon (talk) 20:39, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I would suggest that it is, at best, semi-reliable. It's reliable for some aspects, but not generally. Dylan Flaherty (talk) 23:40, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

I'd consider it reliable in its fact checking but biased in opinion. Personally I don't think that quote used in the article makes any sense considering Christianity or evangelical are criteria for spirituality. That's not to say the source isn't reliable overall. Devourer09 (t·c) 14:59, 5 November 2010 (UTC)

Insane Clown Posse- Gang

I'm not sure where this subject should be included here, or if there ought to be (is there?) another page. Perhaps someone can help me find a place to put it.

My local newspaper, the Bellingham Herald ran an article today with the headline, "Man dead after gang confrontation in Maple Falls.". The article states, "[Whatcom County Sherrif Bill] Elfo said people involved in the incident are members of a local street gang known as Insane Clown Posse, after The Detroit rap duo. Members are known as Juggalos or Juggalettes. More than 100 members of the gang are known to law-enforcement authorities in Whatcom County, Elfo told The Herald in 2011. Many members have extensive criminal records."

Upon looking on Wikipedia for more information I find that there is no mention of gangs on the entire page, but there is clearly a connection. Is this because the page is considered to be biographical in nature? Why is there no page about the gang? Aaronbrand2012 (talk) 17:07, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Juggalo would be the page you are looking for. For the record, though, the Juggalo subculture as a whole is not gang-related, which is why there are no pages on an "Insane Clown Posse gang". However, Juggalos have been classified as a gang in many police jurisdictions, sometimes because of misinformation provided to police and sometimes because a criminal Juggalo subset has become active in that area (this is probably a case of the latter). I'd add your source to the Juggalo page under the section "Crime attributed to Juggalos". That section pretty much needs to be rewritten, anyhow. Luvanger666 (talk) 02:20, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

the opening paragraph

"the group is composed of talentless pricks"? Really? And I can't edit the article to take that out? Come on guys... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.237.221.239 (talk) 06:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. If you'd like to edit an article that is semi-protected, all you have to do is create an account. Silverseren^C 07:34, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Singles?

Why is the singles section no longer in the template? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.193.126.189 (talk) 05:31, 20 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 June 2013

ICP never ended up returning to australia in 2010 as mentioned in this page. 203.63.156.2 (talk) 02:55, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

Done, thanks. Adrian J. Hunter^{(talk•contribs)} 05:21, 24 June 2013 (UTC)

Comment

Someone should put in the "Also Known As" area "The Infernal Clown Posse" — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheRealJitty (talk • contribs) 02:05, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

• No, it's not an official stage name that they were billed as in concerts.--WTF (talk) 16:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

This page reads like it was written by a fan and not a neutral observer. 24.117.88.30 (talk) 18:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Photos?

There are no photos of this band (in or out of makeup) or on their individual pages. Do no photos exist? They are so popular, that's hard to believe. 63.143.226.144 (talk) 22:08, 14 July 2013 (UTC)

Adapt vs Adopt

Seems like "Bruce suggested the band adapt this genre" should be "Bruce suggested the band adopt this genre". I'd change, but the page is protected. Pdarley (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:41, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Legal troubles

Can you make a correction to the "legal troubles" section of Insane Clown Posse to state that a former employee is suing Psychopathic Records, alleging sexual harassment from some Psychopathic employees? The way the section is worded now makes it seem as if ICP were the perpetrators of sexual harassment, which isn't the case, and also, they are not the ones being sued, their company is, which is a different case. Also, could you rename the section or merge it into the biography, because there is currently two sections called "legal troubles" which makes things confusing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ACLUSupporter1 (talk • contribs) 21:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

up to date editing

Hello wikipedia, juggalos, and juggalettes, its come to my attention after reviewing this page about I.C.P., that its not completely up to date, One mater in particular is that juggalos number in the millions already. I dont quite have soures but there are juggalos in other countries besides the US. In fact spanish speaking countries already made a variation of the wod juggalo to be better digested into the language. Also the founding of juggalolz and juggalo memes, pages on Facebook, suggest that the "demographic", if you will, has rown to more that " tens of thousands". Ricky Bonez (talk) 14:09, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Translation discrepancies

I am refining the translation between Spanish and English, and I have run into a discrepancy. The Spanish page states that ICP has 3 Gold Labels and this article states 5(possibly more up to date?)
Unfortunately there is no inline source for this information here(there should be), please let me know the most accurate information if you can. JacobiJonesJr (talk) 06:47, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 April 2015

I am writing this edit request to see if a new picture could be put at the primary picture for this Wikipedia page , due to the fact that the picture now is very small & blurry.

https://weirdestband.files.wordpress.com/2012/06/icp-2.jpg

The link above is an example of a better picture to use. BigZeeMilich (talk) 10:26, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Not done: Please make your request for a new image to be uploaded to Files For Upload. Once the file has been properly uploaded, feel free to reactivate this request to have the new image used. Please be sure that you can prove the image is not copyright before making the upload request - Arjayay (talk) 13:55, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

FAR review?

This page is extremely long and isn't concise, there's very little pictures in all of this, the timeline at the bottom is completely broken, there's an empty section, and multiple sections with no in-line citations. Does anybody think they can fix this to avoid a FAR? Kharkiv07^Talk 12:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

People in band timeline (esp. Otis).

Should producers, and such, be listed in the band timeline? In most places, only semi-major members are included (for example, The Rolling Stones). If non-members should be included, Otis should at have his role identified in the section above. And what then to do about Michael "Seven" Summers or Brian Kuma, listed as "Production" on The Marvelous Missing Link: Lost? And that's only an example, likely other examples exist. Rwessel (talk) 08:45, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Insane Clown Posse. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20121022050027/http://music.yahoo.com/insane-clown-posse/news/artist-nameicp-id1012809-tour-manager-pleads-guilty-in-eminem-t-shirt-incident--12033739 to http://music.yahoo.com/insane-clown-posse/news/artist-nameicp-id1012809-tour-manager-pleads-guilty-in-eminem-t-shirt-incident--12033739
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20071222092650/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/articles.aspx?id=466 to http://www.blender.com/guide/articles.aspx?id=466
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080529014916/http://www.blender.com:80/guide/reviews.aspx?id=216 to http://www.blender.com/guide/reviews.aspx?id=216

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:07, 28 January 2016 (UTC)