Talk:Nikolas Schreck

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... I remember the last time this was an article and it didn't have any sources and was barely legible. I have fixed these problems and added sections for both his work in Radio Werewolf (an article which has been cleared of any problems at this time) and his work as an author, of several books, including one which achieved quite some level of fame. If any additional sources are needed I can add them, but all sections have sourcing. Twarwick666 (talk) 19:04, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

Thank you so much for creating this article, I have wanted to do it myself, but am fed up with the fascism of wikipedia. Much love. --84.210.51.133 (talk) 00:52, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Contested deletion

This page should not be speedy deleted because... --Rammstein Viking (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2011 (UTC)

This article has enough sources to stay. I see no reason why it should be deleted. If it's an issue of relevance, Nikolas' work was very relevant when it came out, and continues to have a cult following. He is also a significant figure since his band, Radio Werewolf, heavily influenced gothic rock music.

Constant Vandalism

Someone using the IP 93.152.185.150 and also the username Truth4ZeenaNikolasSchreck Has been repeatedly attacking this page.

174.62.218.24 (talk) 18:33, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Problems with sources and neutrality?

I am unsure as to why this article was marked as needing improvements on neutrality or sources. For an underground figure like Nikolas Schreck, it is difficult to find many sources for information, but the information that exists on this page is all sourced. As for neutrality, I don't see where there is any opinion or bias contained in this article. Twarwick666 (talk) 19:25, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

The article uses qualitative terms like "famous" and "comprehensive" that give me concerns about the article's neutrality. Terms like these should only be used if they can be attributed to a neutral source. The referencing overall in this article is very sparse, particularly since the interviews are essentially unverifiable without better citation. IMDB and metal-impact.com are both unreliable sources. VQuakr (talk) 19:35, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Simply googling the interviews yields the actual footage of the interview in question. However you must understand, it is difficult to get good sources on such an underground subject. However, I am attempting to collect numerous new sources, but this may take some time, so hopefully there are no plans to delete it in the meantime. 132.198.251.56 (talk) 00:13, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

IMHO it would pass an AfD in its present state despite being deleted after one the last time. Either way, you would have a week's notice and a chance to chip in to the discussion. VQuakr (talk) 01:22, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Re neutrality issue - agree there are weasel words and the Manson File section seems to be written in an in-universe style (e.g.: "...allowing the true story to be told at last" etc). Manytexts (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Petition for permanent deletion of “People with missing ears” categories listing:

In response to Alepik's addition of the “People with missing ears” categories listing and comment, “Stop reverting, idiot, this is clearly mentioned on his own website in detail.”:

Alepik, it's neither helpful nor productive to refer to the greater Wiki editing commmunity as “idiots”. A little friendlier response goes a long way!

I propose permanent revert of this category to this public figure's listing according to Wiki guidelines (guidelines copied below for convenient review) with accompanying reasoning, also below.

After reading the below proposal, if edit wars on the categories listings persist, I will beseech the aid of a WikiAdmin to find an end to such nonsense. For now, I present peaceable reasoning for permanent removal of this superfluous categories listing.

Regardless of whether or not this public figure mentions the fact of his missing ear on his own website, this categories listing is superfluous and potentially malicious/vandalism in this particular case based on the following:

While it may be a known fact that Nikolas Schreck has a missing ear that was not a birth defect but a result of a physical violent attack (as Alepik correctly mentions, cited on Schreck's website), the below listed Wiki guidelines should be taken into account when utlising this categories listing with descretion. In particular, when considering the following:

1) Is Nikolas Schreck's missing ear so much a part of his life, career and what he's known for that it should be added as a categories listing? - (NO);

2) Does adding this superfluous category adhere to Wiki guidelines in the “Limit the number” clause for categories guidelines? (See below) / Are we limiting the listings to the essentials of this public figures's credentials? - (NO);

3) Has listings of Schreck's missing ear mostly been the source of malicious gossip and rumour by the cult of his wife's (Zeena Schreck's) estranged family (LaVeyan satanists, The Church of Satan and their followers) – (YES).

Therefore, according to Wiki guidelines for categories listings, Nikolas Schreck's missing ear is a non-essential aspect of his career but an incidental detail of his life, and potentially even a source of harassment, making this categories listing superfluous and potential vandalism.

Furthermore, unlike other listings in the category of “People with missing ears”, where the defect played a major role in the person's life story and/or work, the same cannot be said in this instance. It's only an incidental fact.

To draw comparisons:

1: Paul Stanley who was born with microtia, is an ambassador for the charitable organization AboutFace, an organization that provides support and information to individuals with facial differences and has appeared at fundraising events and in videos to raise awareness.

2: Bibi Aisha, the Afghan woman whose mutilated face appeared on the cover of Time magazine in summer 2010 prompting doctors to write in offering to help her.

To recap: That the subject of Schreck's ear has been a source of intrigue and malicious rumour has nothing to do with his work. So although it is a fact that he has a missing ear, dwelling on a non-essential, incidental aspect of a public figure's life, which has no bearing on his public work, borders on abuse of a category. In an effort to maintain quality control, gratuitous employment of Wikipedia categories regarding physical defects should be curtailed.

Please review Wiki categories guidelines (copied directly below from Wiki guidelines page):

Categories should not be automatically assigned: Categories are only assigned as the result of an individual assessment of the content of an article (lists are easier in this sense, because a doubtful assignation can be marked as such). See also Wikipedia:Bots for a general discussion of contra-indications regarding automated operations.

Not all categories are comprehensive: For some "sensitive" categories, it is better to think of the category as a set of representative and unquestioned examples, while a list is a better venue for an attempt at completeness. Particularly for "sensitive" categories, lists can be used as a complement to categorization. See also Wikipedia:Categories, lists, and series boxes.

Double check: Always check after saving an article whether the categorization strikes you as offensive or indelicate. The Wikipedia system allows anybody to edit the article and remove a questionable categorization. To avoid that, follow your intuition in finding those categories you think most to the point and inoffensive. Create a new category that better serves what you want to communicate, rather than using an existing category that is (partly) inconsistent with the content of the article.

Limit the number: Try to limit the number of categories. For example, a film actor who holds a law degree should be categorized as a film actor, but not as a lawyer unless his or her legal career was notable in its own right. However it is also important to ensure that categories contain all of the most relevant articles. This means that some prominent people, such as senior politicians who have held many offices, will be in a considerable number of categories. Apart from these factual categories, for those categories that require an assessment of personal characteristics (e.g. art movement style...), try to limit the number of categories to what is most essential about this person, something in the vein of: "give me 4 or 5 words that best characterize this person."

Exert extra precaution with regard to the categorization of living people: see Categories, lists and navigation templates.

(end cut)

Thank you Alepik for your many contributions to Wikipedia. Please take a moment in quiet to familiarise yourself with the list of categories guidelines above before jumping in again though, and keep categories listings pertaining to living people's bodily parts, which could be considered in bad taste, or a source of gossip or vandalism, out.

Thank You! Got2Bthere (talk) 16:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Wow, please do include WikiAdmins into this argument, by my request, since I'm convinced my edits were valid. The background how he lost his ear is irrelevant and him talking about it on his own website clearly means that he does not want the fact to be hidden - how it happened being irrelevant. Should we remove Michael J. Fox from the People with Parkinson's Disease category as he did not have it all his life and played no crucial part in his career, there are thousands of other examples which I won't bring up.

Who is spreading what rumors and the family situation is also irrelevant.

Also, I referred to the person reverting my valid category addition as an "idiot", while not classy - my edit reversion happened without explanation. Never once did I refer to the "greater Wiki editing commmunity" as idiots, that is plain slander and false information. Thank you and good day. Alepik (talk) 21:21, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

References

Whitewashing

It is mentioned in several reliable sources (Including academic ones like Sunshine) that Schreck is not his birth name, and that he named himself after a Nazi, which sources tie to his performances and ideological views. Since there is no need to include the other name, I did not.

That he is a Charles Manson revisionist (sources use the term to describe him) and fan is also prominently discussed and he has been criticized for this. Whitewashing Schreck and the many controversial, to say the least, things he has said, is a problem. This isn't even the tip of the iceberg, he is best discussed in academic sources for his ties to the self described racist and fascist Abraxas Foundation. He described it as racist, on the talk show of Tom Metzger, in his own words, and praised it for its white supremacy, as noted by RS. This article really should cover this more than it does. These sources are reliable per WP:RS and there is no reason whatsoever to say they aren't. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:19, 18 September 2025 (UTC)

@Makali2 Could you state why these academic sources, and Schreck's own claims, are unreliable? Per WP:RS they are the most reliable sources per our policy. He is described in multiple academic sources as a Manson revisionist. Many sources note it is not his birth name. I agree we should not include his birth name out of courtesy.PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:50, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

@Makali2 You have never said why these sources, that are extremely reliable, would be wrong on this. That Schreck has openly expressed white supremacy is not an obscure or controversial fact. It is the main reason he is notable! PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Parakayaa and Wikipedia Team,

We will attempt to cordially present the errors and conjectures you included in your article so that we may find resolution. We kept most of your article, and merely removed what was unverified speculation and errors.

There is no reliable evidence that Schreck was born in 1958 and 1959.

There is no reliable evidence that Schreck named himself after Julius Schreck. That is conjecture from a book by Gavin Baddely and repeated without any further evidence by Spencer Sunshine, whose often inaccurate portrayal of facts and events Schreck has disputed publicly.

You do not include that Schreck is a teacher of Vajrayana Buddhism in your reversions. This has been well established for years if not in the few books you drew your research from. Therefore we added it. WE also added the solo recordings he has released which are also a matter of public record. Why would you revert to a version that excludes them?

The Werewolf Order ended in 1993 not 1999. We corrected this error.

There is no such thing as Werewolf Korps. Schreck frequently stated that the band was named after Radio Werewolf, the German broadcasting network. Why include inaccurate information?

We corrected your use of the phrase Abraxas Clique, one of many errors in Sunshine's polemic book and replaced it with the actual name The Abraxas Foundation, also a matter of public record.

The Manson File, published in 1988 was written by Schreck not Parfrey, and there are two further editions of it, not just one. We corrected your errors.

Your designation of Schreck as a 'fan' of Manson is your subjective opinion. He authored a book based on years of research and made a documentary film about the subject, which is why he is relevant to the subject therefore we removed the derogatory use of the word 'fan'. He did not just claim to correspond with Manson, as you stated, it is well known that he did, as well as visiting him in prison many times, as there is ample written and photographic documentation of.

There are many other ommissions we will add later, for now we direct your attention to the specific errors and unfounded speculations we corrected.

These are not controversial changes. We left most of your writing when it is founded in fact. Do you have some objection to our removal of unfounded conjecture and correction of facts and chronology? If not, then kindly let us resolve this issue. Thank you. Makali2 (talk) 02:25, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The reliable evidence that he was born sometime in that period is that he said in an interview that he was 28 in 1987. WP:CALC, 1987 - 28 = sometime in 1958 or 1959.

Spencer Sunshine is a reliable researcher, his book was published by an academic press, and after perusing the numerous reviews for the book it received universal academic praise for its research. Baddeley is also a widely cited writer in academia and received praise for his research on the occult. That Schreck doesn't like it is of no relevance. The Julius Schreck detail is not terribly important since they say they aren't entirely sure but that it is not his birth name and is a German word that means "terror" should be included.

That was uncited. This is a WP:BLP, it all has to be cited. Do you have a source that says anything about Buddhism in relation to Schreck? Otherwise it is a policy violation.

I don't dispute the werewolf order thing but that was uncited. The "Abraxas Clique" is not 1-1 with the Abraxas Foundation. And the Werewolf Korps thing may be a minor mistake on my part and I am fine with that being corrected. But that was not about the band, it was about the Order. I will check this again.

Several sources say it was written by Parfrey. I'm not sure how true that is, since sources disagree, so that is why it said "may". You cannot censor that some sources say that.

The source explicitly describes him as a Manson fan. The source says he said he has contacted Manson. How are we supposed to know that is true? Is there evidence that it is true?

Further: are you Schreck, or someone associated with him? Why are you using "we"? Are multiple people operating your account?

Your additions have to have sources, or they are BLP violations. PARAKANYAA (talk) 02:36, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

We understand from your article and your comments that in what we are sure in good faith your knowledge of the subject seems limited to what we must continue to reiterate are the inaccurate and biased works of Baddelly (a Church of Satan propagandist whose book is inaccurate in many regards on many topics) and Sunshine (whose book may be well received by sympathetic reviewers but is also rife with errors.)

Schreck's solo recordings are easily heard on Bandcamp, YouTube and other streaming services. Therefore we include them. There are reviews of all of them online.

We are not aware of interview Schreck stating that he was 28 in 1987. Can you kindly show us a copy of it? Thank you.

Spencer Sunshine is a reliable researcher, his book was published by an academic press, and after perusing the numerous reviews for the book it received universal academic praise for its research. Baddeley is also a widely cited writer in academia and received praise for his research on the occult. Schreck doesn't like it because it makes him look bad.

Again,these are your subjective opinions. We have read both books and can cite numerous errors in both of them. Neither Baddely Or Sunshine cite any reliable source for their Julius Schreck claim, so it is not verified and is clearly just unfounded conjecture. Therefore not worthy of inclusion

Do you have a source that says anything about Buddhism in relation to Schreck?

Again,with all due respect,this indicates a rather superficial knowledge of the subject on your part, which we are merely seeking to improve with more accurate information. Here are only some of many references to Schreck's teaching of Tantric Buddhism, which may provide you with a more detailed understanding, not only of the Buddhist aspect but many others you omit,perhaps more from not knowing than malice:

https://www.tumblr.com/secret-knowledge/72218112781/nikolas-schreck-talks-about-his-transition-from

https://theaither.com/we-chat-with-nikolas-schreck-musician-writer-buddhist-occult-practitioner-and-filmmaker/

https://frasortsand.wordpress.com/tag/nikolas-schreck/

https://de.scribd.com/document/361621597/Nikolas-Schreck-Interviewed-on-Tantric-Buddhism-Magic-the-Left-Hand-Path-NikolasSchreck

https://club-debil.com/magazin/debil-online/kingdom-heaven-near/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FSfzJWBcmeU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z38KbaBim48

https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=631443631347355

https://satanist.fandom.com/wiki/Nikolas_Schreck

https://www.radio-on-berlin.com/?p=13340

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5ragIf7hNg

https://heathenharvest.wordpress.com/2014/09/10/in-her-thrall-an-interview-with-nikolas-schreck/

You write: I don't dispute the werewolf order thing but that was uncited. The "Abraxas Clique" is not 1-1 with the Abraxas Foundation. And the Werewolf Korps thing may be a minor mistake.

If you are not disputing them,then is there any reason to retain what we maintain are errors?

You write:Several sources say it was written by Parfrey. I'm not sure how true that is, since sources disagree, so that is why it said "may".

Several sources about public figures say many things, this one happens not to be true. Therefore we deleted it.

The source explicitly describes him as a Manson fan. The source says he said he has contacted Manson. How are we supposed to know that is true?

Again, thats subjective. You have clearly not read the Manson File, or seen the many photographs of Schreck with Manson, or heard the interviews with Manson he conducted which are widely available online. Ten minutes of research will show that he was in correspondence with Manson for years.

Further: are you Schreck, or someone associated with him? This sounds like a WP:COI. Why are you using "we"?

We are a consortium of researchers who strive to correct misinformation on several authors, artists, musicians and spiritual figures who are frequently misrepresented by underresearched or biased sources.

I am the supervisor of the research group, condensing our findings in a coherent voice.

We barely changed anything in your mostly accurate article except statements that were obviously subjective opinions expressed by third parties, fixed errors of fact, and added relevant material you may have been unaware of.

We assume your errors were based on the limited sources you drew from rather than an intention to mislead and have cordially attemoted to find compromise. Is there any other point of contention, or we may now lay this to rest? Thank you. Makali2 (talk) 03:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not rife with errors, and if Baddeley being in the Church of Satan makes him wrong in spite of academic support for his book, why should we treat Schreck's (a former Satanist) as true? If he is unreliable for being a Satanist, so is Schreck.

None of those are WP:reliable sources. We cannot use social media or user uploads. Things like reliably published books, news media, etc.

I did not know that at the time, and will not add those 2 details back in the future. The rest still stands.

You cannot remove a source because you, personally, do not think it is true. Where is your proof? Things must be WP:Verifiable. If reliable sources say something then we say it, unless there is a conflict; you don't get to decide it is wrong without proof.

I own a copy of The Manson File. I thought it was pretty good. But I have also read Apocalypse Culture and Rants and found the editorial voice/contents to be rather similar to Parfrey's.

Accounts cannot be owned by multiple people. Did Schreck ask you to make these edits? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:40, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

It is not rife with errors, and if Baddeley being in the Church of Satan makes him wrong in spite of academic support for his book, why should we treat Schreck's (a former Satanist)

We do not wish to dissuade you of your admiration for Baddely's book which is indeed a work of propaganda filled with inaccurate misinformation about Mr. Baddely's friend LaVey while disparaging others who do not support the Church of Satan. We can provide detailed rebuttal of much of it, but that it besides the point. Of more relevance , why are you so certain of the Julius Schreck claim? Are you stating that it is fact and not conjecture? Do you insist that this unfounded speculation is included?

None of those are WP:reliable sources. We cannot use social media or user uploads. Things like reliably published books, news media, etc.

You asked for any evidence of Schreck's Buddhist teachings. I provided you with ample evidence of many people referring to it in independent podcasts and online magazines going back years. Do you really still dispute it?

Your mistaken belief that the 1988 Manson File was written by Parfrey is your personal opinion. If you insist on continuing to spread this misinformation, we will endeavor to provide evidence that it is false and defamatory.

Accounts cannot be owned by multiple people. Did Schreck ask you to make these edits?

I already answered your question. I am the sole owner. I represent a group of researchers who correct misinformation on many figures misrepresented online. Nobody asked us to make these edits. We noticed the errors and conjecture and attempted to rectify them as we do in many other forums when we are made aware of them.

Thank you again. Makali2 (talk) 03:58, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I already said I was ambivalent on this specific claim!

I asked for reliable sources in line with policy. These are not.

It is not my personal opinion. RS repeat it. I think it's true. You don't. What matters is what RS say.

You just said that multiple people control this account, and then you go back on it? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:06, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Sir,

If you review our exchange, I said very clearly that I am the sole owner of the account but that I draw on the research of a group that seeks to correct misinformation online. Nothing was gone back on.

There is no use debating whether Baddely and Sunshine are reliable sources, you obviously believe they are and that is your right. I understand that you probably genuinely believe that your presentation of this material is neutral and objective and therefore there is no reason to attempt to persuade you to remove conjecture. We disagree. Good day, sir, and all the best in your efforts. Makali2 (talk) 04:23, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

You added material without sources on a WP:BLP and your justification for this is blatantly unreliable sourcing. What is your group? Your exclusive usage of "we" and indication you are in contact with the subject of this article - your assertion that Schreck has debunked the books critical of him, somehow - where was that said? PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:30, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

The source on his birth date is the one that I cited for it in the article, that you removed (https://www.newspapers.com/article/simi-valley-star-manson-film-basically/181019057/). PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:49, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for providing the article. We were not aware of it and will add it to the archive. However, it's only the author of the article who states the age, it's not a direct quote so we have reason to doubt its veracity. Such errors are common in hastily written newspaper articles. Also, you can see that Schreck is directly quoted verbatim in this article from 1987 as saying that he is compiling the book that became The Manson File, so why is that not sufficient to debunk your belief in Parfrey's false claim? Makali2 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

What archive?

What reason do you have to doubt its veracity? It's clearly an interview with him. We have no reason to doubt it, any WP:OR is irrelevant. WP:Original research is not allowed.

Because an academic source says otherwise It wasn't even presented as fact, but as a "may", since sources disagree. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:07, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Dear Parakanyaa,

We maintain an archive on esoteric art, literature and music as a research source we draw on to provide accurate information on topics frequently misrepresented in a media landscape all too subject to conspiracy theory and axes to grind.

We have politely and patiently replied to your questions. You continue to revert to including conjecture, speculation and reliance on biased sources in the article. We have sought to resolve these issues in the interest of fact. based objectivity. We will refrain from resorting to speculation on your motives and will seek other means of correcting the inaccuracies you insist on reiteraring. Thanks again. Makali2 (talk) 04:15, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

This is not a website for original research, but what WP:SECONDARY sources say. What you or I think does not matter. Your WP:original research is not usable here.

I, and most other contributors here, have stuck to reliable, secondary sources in my additions to the article, and will keep doing so in the future. I don't care what you or anyone else on this planet thinks of me. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:20, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Finally, sir, we do not think anything personally of you, we simply tried to remove what seems to several to be cherry-picked conjecture drawn from a very limited and biased range of sources. We have clearly not succeeded in making our point and will therefore seek other means of redress. Makali2 (talk) 04:27, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Other means, being? I looked for a wide range of sources on Schreck: most talk about these, or books he has written PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:28, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

Means following the protocol as stipulated by Wikipedia administration. We followed the regulation asking for reasoned discussion on the Talk page and after extensive exchange with you have clearly reached an impasse here that will not lead to any fruitful results. Thus concludes our communication, with all kind regards. Makali2 (talk) 04:33, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

I am unsure what protocol you are referring to. You have no means of redress, because you are not the subject of this article. If Schreck would like to request alterations to his page, he is free to, but there is no guarantee they will be accepted outside the limits of WP:BLP. Adding unsourced material and removing RS is not. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:35, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

With all due respect, many other articles on similar topics that fall short of the objective neutrality standards Wikipedia advocates have been successfully improved. This one will be too. I am certain of your benevolent if somewhat ill-informed intentions and will not disturb you any further. Makali2 (talk) 04:41, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

"Nikolasschreck.world" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nikolasschreck.world has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 12 § Nikolasschreck.world until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:33, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

"Nikolasschreck.eu" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Nikolasschreck.eu has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2026 February 12 § Nikolasschreck.eu until a consensus is reached. 1234qwer1234qwer4 14:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

earache my eye

My friend, the matter of the right ear is self-evident, beyond medical doubt, and a matter of degree. By the same logic you’ve saying if it were Schreck’s arms and legs that had been amputated, but for whatever reason this were not explicitly described in a citation as a disability (for reasons of, say, gaping obviousness), he wouldn’t qualify as disabled. ~2026-17585-47 (talk) 06:29, 21 March 2026 (UTC)

Do sources describe him as a disabled person? No. He doesn't go in the category per WP:CATDEF. We have no evidence he was at all disabled due to the injury. PARAKANYAA (talk) 06:47, 21 March 2026 (UTC)