Talk:Book of the SubGenius
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate, you can edit the article attached to this page. You can discuss the Project at its talk page. | |
| ??? | This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article. | |
Hello, this talk of seeing through the government and into "the conspiracy" is a little vague, although I'm assuming it's a belief in some sort of illuminati-esque conspiracy. Would someone be willing to expand? -Chris.
"The Conspiracy" is not of the Discordant Illuminati varity as such. Outsiders assume that to be so because Subgenii are regularly, falsely linked with that group. To define The Conspiracy would need a full seperate article and I'm not going to be the Yeti to write that tome! Ehdee 00:12, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
Given that the Church of the SubGenius is satirical in nature, could this book really be said to be non-fiction? GeeJo (t) (c) • 03:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
Given that the Bible is bullshit in nature, could that book really be said to be non-fiction?
- The difference is that not everyone believes that the Bible is "bullshit", and some sincerely believe in it being literal truth. Noone thinks that this book is literal truth. In future, try to avoid inflammatory descriptions, and please sign your posts with a ~~~~ to let people know who's talking. GeeJo (t) (c) • 17:44, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
I know of many who believe this to be the literal truth, myself included. Why label a non-fiction book as fiction just because a few people can understand 'satirical' doesn't mean 'untruthful'. I was not the previous anon. poster, btw. Ehdee 00:08, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Putting a verify tag on this article because it is being used as a serious reference
See Church of the SubGenius where this article is being used as a reference for the quotes.
Now I have read the other comments on this talk page and realize that some people on the talk page believe the book is a satire, while others believe it is the literal truth. Whatever. The Wikipedia page still can't be used as a reference for another article anyway.
But since the articles does exist and is being linked to, it needs to be verified per WP:V just as any other article has to be. Mattisse(talk) 23:50, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
