User talk:Andries

Thank you for welcomming me, Andries, but i have registred several times allready and the Wiki computer keeps forgetting my name...

Robert Prummel Netherlands

Following user:Eloquence's example I do not archive but remove the contents on my discussion page

First removal on 26 Sept. removed everything before June 1st

New category for New Age?

Hey, Andries, I know you hate the term, but what do you think about establishing a "New Age" or similar category for collecting all the nineteenth & twentieth century religious stuff? We could call the category "New Religious Movements" as an alternative, I suppose. I'm just looking for a way to pull all that stuff together in a category, but broader than and without the baggage of the "cult" category. What do you think? --Gary D 08:02, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

yes, there should be some list or category but I don't know what or how yet. (list of new age subjects?)By the way this is my addition to the New Age article and my personal opinion " Others think that the classification of beliefs and movements under New Age has little added value due to the vagueness of the term. Instead, they prefer to refer directly to the individual beliefs and movements. " Andries 20:19, 8 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I think a category rather than a list. A category will help users "drilling down" from the main page who want to get their hands around "recent religious happenings." I agree that this proposed category is very diverse, even vague, and its boundaries are amorphous. However, there is definitely a particular phenomenon that people are pointing to when someone says, "New Age" or "modern spirituality." I bet if you and I were given a list of ten random topics, we would agree on whether eight or nine out of the ten either were or were not within this phoenomenon. (For instance, I think it could be generally said that this phenomenon more or less started about the time of the Fox sisters and spiritualism in the nineteenth century.) It is this fairly definite phenomenon that I am proposing to tie down with a category. The label of the category isn't crucial for me, so if the phrase "New Age" is problematic, some other label will do just as well.

Without seeming overly simplistic I believe New Age is a category in & of itself. Some of us have heard the phrase "New Age spin". At the very least New Age is a modifier, or adjective, for a large number of topics. It is real, it is here, and it won't go away if we pretend it shouldn't be around. Category: New Age. Hmmm.. it was right there in front of us all the time ;-) BF 01:02, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Andries, this could be a groundswell of support (well, two of us, anyways). But I would still rather have your blessing before proceeding to create it. Category:New Age -- what do you think? --Gary D 02:15, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Well, yes, I am afraid that there should be a category New age. Quite ironic that I am asked to give a blessing because I am the one in Wikipedia who opposes the term the most. Andries 09:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

That is precisely why I asked you. --Gary D 18:55, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

User BF, by the way, is the main author of the well written article about New Age. Andries 09:41, 13 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Andries, I have created Category:New religious movements. Could you go to its talk page and dialogue with Sam Spade, who is leaning toward "New Age" for this category? Thanks. --Gary D 01:10, 15 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I see you have begun work on the "New Age" category. I have now joined in. We'll see how this works out in terms of breadth of scope, and how it interacts with the "New religious movements" category. Onward! --Gary D 07:57, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba revisited

Hi Andres. While I agree that User:Freelanceresearch is almost certainly the same person as User:209.240.205.63, I think it's important to at least give a new user the benefit of the doubt. I got an edit conflict, so I stuck in my "nice" request and welcome message above your note. You might consider removing it or toning it down, but it's your choice. I personally feel it's important to avoid "biting the newbies". And also, I doubt that the account or the IP will be blocked without some broader discussion. I'd recommend listing Talk:Sathya Sai Baba on Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Thanks, BCorr|Брайен 21:07, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

thanks for your help. I have been very liberal with undocumented edits on this article but I find these latest edits slanderous and irrelevant. They are ad hominem attack against the critics of SSB that don't belong in a serious article. I don't think that discussion in this case with this person helps to come closer. I know this person from yahoo group sathya sai baba. I will do my best to do tone it down but I am very pessimistic. Andries 21:14, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

I understand -- and thanks for letting me know you've deal with this person before. I will continue to assume good faith as long as I can. ;-) BCorr|Брайен 22:00, 23 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Hallo Andries, ik lees dat je liever hier werkt, maar toch een welkom als medenederlander. Groeten, Ellywa 09:51, 3 Jul 2004 (UTC) (meestal op NL)

Maharaji

Hey, Andries, you might want to take a look at the material recently contributed by User 24.69.61.197 on the Maharaji page. It has now been reverted as "vandalism" but, while some of it is pretty POV, I don't think this material was vandalism. You may want to take a look at it to see if some of the more NPOV factual stuff within this material should be retained in the article. --Gary D 01:32, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ed, yes, Jossifresco was quite a newbie but he knew exactly what he was doing when he repeatedly remove relevant documented facts from the Maharaji article to present a whitewashed picture of Maharaji/Prem Rawat. How can an administrator allow that? How can Wikipedia ever become a good encyclopedia if users are allowed to do this? Andries 16:42, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Andries... please relax... First I only did that once (never again...!). Secondly I have backed-off from touching that page, only monitoring for vandalism. Other editors are doing a pretty god job on NPOV without my help. I am too vested... And thirdly, it will really help everyone if you stop cavorting and colluding with the ex-followers, to push their POV and to ban me [1] anmd [2]. Your accussations border on the histerical. --jossi 17:11, 7 Jul 2004 (UTC)

---

Andries you posted this: The article in itself is quite old but since yesterday a lot of criticism was moved from the Prem Rawat article to the ex-premie article. May be Mike Finch is right that the concept is flawed. The only thing that I do lately on Wikipedia is arguing with Jossi Fresco and reverting his edits. Andries

This is very unfair to accuse me of the above. You are indeed very duplicitous in your dealings with me and with other Wikipedians. How can I trust you when you speak ill behind my back. You allegiance with the Ex-premies is going to fair. You accept their arrogance and righteousness without questioning, even to the extent of accepting abuse from them.

This is very, very unfair that in one hand you claim to be a Wikipedian, and on the other hand say that the concept is flawed. Tis is the beauty of this project: People like you with an agenda to push (the whole "anti-cult" enchilada) will not be able to prevail. The reason? Human nature and freedom, and a community of people that are attempting the noble path of creating a compendium of human knowledge that is untainted by bias.

My suggestion: take a break. You seem way too involved and not having much fun. I took a long break, did some paintings and focused on my family and my paintings for a while. It indeed helped me.--jossi 09:35, 28 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Ron Geaves article

You can download the paper of Ron Geaves online at http://caliber.ucpress.net/doi/abs/10.1525/nr.2004.7.3.45. (From Divine Light Mission to Elan Vital and Beyond: An Exploration of Change and Adaptation) I cannot send you my copy, that would be copyvio... :) --Zappaz 22:22, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re: Reliability of the information of ex-members of purported cults

Hello. Sorry to have upset you. I might not have said what I meant properly. I did not mean to emphasize the point that they were ex members, but that the list itself seemed biased. Basically what I meant to say was not that their claims were invalid, but that the list was biased because of how few were on it, and there was no firm distinction—no encyclopedic distinction—about why the chosen cults were on the list. I used the word hearsay because no reference to confirmation was given (I don't claim that none exists). Thus, unless every cult that is accused in some way of something is on this list, there needs to be a more formal way of deciding what would be on the list. I certainly didn't mean to imply that the ex members were giving flawed information. —siroχo 10:18, Jul 4, 2004 (UTC)

YOU DON'T HAVE A RIGHT TO TELL ME WHAT TO DO. Get off my back.--jossi 18:00, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sincere apologies for my barking... sometimes I get quite upset when people judge me without knowing anything about me, or when they patronize me.--jossi 21:27, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not allow you to write articles that are propaganda. Please follow not only the guidelines but also try to be reasonable. Andries 18:14, 4 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Exactly. Try and tell this to the apostates.

Your behavious is abhorrent

Your behaviour in editing the Maharaji page is abhorrent. It shows bias, and contempt for this Encyclopedia. Taking sides with ex-followers of Maharaji, cavorting with them and making fun of my views, and at the same time claim that you are a Wikipedia editor with neutrality as his aim is *** and ***.

Sincere apology

I cannot believe that I was so upset at you to write what I wrote above. Don't know if you will accet it, but here it is: My sincere apologies for these comments. Hope we can put this aside and continue working in this project.

I took a step back from getting involved in the editing of te page (just monitoring vandalism) and I am very impressed with the way the article on Maharaji is evolving. I still cringe about some of the stuff written there, but as long it is properly referenced and source quites I think it works.

I would just suggest if you could keep away from getting involved with the ex-followers. Some of them can be quite aggressive and obtuse, and find pleasure in vandalizing and blasphemy. It also doesn't add to your stature as an editor specialized in NRMs as I see you are. --jossi 06:11, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Ex-followers is an interesting phenomena in itself. I remember reading some study on credibility of their testimonies, but couldn't find it now by googling. Very frequently not credible. The problem that people not just leave the group, but make a career out of leaving: engage in activism, give critical interviews etc. When I left one group, I didn;t join any victim association and I don;t feel myself a victim, simply what was interesting to me then is not interesting anymore, that's it. But some people seem to be obsessed with "spreading the truth about cults", for what reasons I don;t understand.

Quite a nice apology; you are a credit to your spiritual path, jossi. I have been involved with other stuff and haven't had the time and energy to tackle a full project lately, so I haven't done anything with Maharaji, but I guess you, Andries, and everyone are getting it worked out just fine. Andries also gave me some Maharaji stuff to look at. I tell you what, if you care to identify the stuff that still makes you cringe, I would be happy to look at those items specifically and give my thoughts. Whatever you like. --Gary D 23:00, 9 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Nazi mysticism

I am interested in why you don't agree that Nazism had a basis in mysticism? I find the subject fascinating, and would love to discuss it. The eveidence is overwhelming and obvious to me, but clearly you see things differently? Lets come to some sort of mutual understanding, please :) Sam [Spade] 19:33, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Can we please discuss why your POV is so extreme in this area? Sam [Spade] 18:08, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I do not think that my POV is extreme. In contrast, I believe that you seriously misguided. I think the evidence that supports your POV is flimsy. Andries 18:11, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

My POV is a non-sequitor. Frankly I am dubious of history generally, and am almost as dubious of contemporary press ;) That said, I think as an encyclopedia we should be favoring the prepondorance of documentation, which in my experience handilly favors the "nazi's were not christians, but rather some type of mystics" argument. Have you seen http://www.thule-gesellschaft.de/ ? Sam

IMO the Nazis were not religious, as Nazi ideology did not touch religion much and thus could coexist with Christianity well (Nazis neither attacked religion, nor endorsed it). With exception of Judaism and Jehowwas's Witnesses, of course.ExitControl

[Spade] 18:36, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Sam, I promise that I will try to be open for evidence that I am wrong. I will start reading the following article in German. http://www.relinfo.ch/thule/infotxt.html Andries 18:41, 22 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Thats great, thank you. My skills w German are not so great, so I really appreciate you investigating for us like this. Are you very familiar w Ásatrú? I think this is a very key peice of this puzzle, since the Nazi mysticism was about as much influenced by germanic paganism as by sanatana dharma (they saw the two as united actually, both being a pre-christian aryan religion). Sam [Spade] 00:01, 23 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I can recommend the book Black Sun by Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke. He has also written other books on the subject. BirgerLangkjer 28 June 2005 11:16 (UTC)

User:Andries/Wikipedia:controversy

Oh my! I get the feeling that this is a good-natured jab at Wikipedia. If I am wrong and you are serious, though, there really are too many other things that are decidedly uncultlike about Wikipedia for me to want it on the Purported cults list. The peer review process at the VfD pages comes to mind. Also, if the NPOV policy wasn't the prime directive I wouldn't waste my time editing here. I have had experiences with people who desperately wanted their POV maintained, but those have been successfully resolved either with arbitration or ignoring the issue for a time and coming back when the belligerents have lost interest in their subject (which usually happens when they cannot bend as many others to their will as they would like). I guess that since vanishingly few people in the world have any expertise whatever in my chosen profession the articles that I have created and extensively contributed to have mostly been left alone. Please keep me informed, thanks! Fire Star 16:51, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Is wikipedia a cult?

Hoi! I read the text, and I kept waiting to see where the punchline was? It's not april 1st, so I'm kind of puzzeled whether the article is meant as humor :-) Kim Bruning 16:53, 25 Jul 2004 (UTC)

re: Category:Cults

Andries, you might want to take a look at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#List of POV categories --Gary D 02:14, 1 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Welcome back

I was starting to worry if your cult joke had indeed been a grumpy goodbye prank ;) Glad to see your still here, who else can I debate vril philosophies with? ;) Maybe you can pick up where we left off at User_talk:Andries#Nazi_mysticism when you find the time? Always enjoying a good discussion, Sam [Spade] 00:02, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Pedantism

Actually, my last comment in Talk:Cold fusion was meant to be a concession that the pedantism was justified. (Bertrand Russell's definition of Pedant: A man who likes his statements to be true.) I confess to being, or having been, inadequately sensitive to the point you raise; now I'll be more alert. Still don't know how to word that particular sentence, though. Dandrake 06:44, Aug 15, 2004 (UTC)

WP:RFA

Dear Andries, please do not interpret my vote on WP:RFA as a personal attack. You are correct that RFA is not the ideal place to unload criticism, and I may have been harsh, especially on the pushiness bit. Still, these were the reasons for my vote. I think the Dutch references can easily be replaced with English resources without compromising on article quality. Your work is appreciated, and I look forward to working with you in the future. JFW | T@lk 16:09, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Gulp! Cough!

It made a mouthful of coffee go down the wrong way when I suddenly saw you withdrawing your RfA nomination in a reply to my random comments, Andries - no hard feelings, I hope. FWIW, I think you're doing the right thing. I'd never aspire to sysophood myself, and I'm sure it would be less useful than the work you're doing now. Best wishes, Bishonen 17:42, 15 Aug 2004 (UTC)

That Surinam coup attempt

The surinam coup attempt was featured on www.fbi.gov on the front page. They seemed to have removed the feature now. But I'm gonna keep looking. WhisperToMe 22:17, 20 Aug 2004 (UTC)

The two temp pages have been deleted. 172 20:37, 29 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your attitude is not conducive to good work

Andries: We have certainly big difference of opinions, but I do not see that that is the real problem. The real problem(s) are:

1. Your inability to do proper research, resorting to hearsay instead when dealing with the Prem Rawat and related pages
2. Your inability to put aside your anti-"guru" POV to able to contribute to these pages
3. Your too obvious intention to use WP as a soapbox for your POV
4. Your double-dealings. You engage me in "friendly" conversations, only to speak ill of me behind my back

I am sorry that you had a bad experience in your live, but that is not an excuse for any of the above.

--≈ jossi ≈ 22:51, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

I do not agree with any of your complaints. I admit that I talked "behind your back" on forum 8 that you could read in an unfriendly way once and I apologized for that. Andries 22:55, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Yes I know you don't agree. That does not make it less true. The proof is in the pudding. And apologies are only good if followed by: "and I will never do that again".

You want to be a sport: Show me that you can "write for the enemy", show me that you can do serious research. Then you will gain my respect and the respect of others in WP-- ≈ jossi ≈ 23:08, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

Jossi, normally I do write for the enemy but on Prem Rawat I do not need to do that because you are here. Read e.g. [[Sathya Sai Baba]. Your behavior forces me to insert criticism otherwise the article on Prew Rawat would be a completely whitewashed propaganda piece. I really think that the weight of evidence that something is wrong with Prem Rawat is very big. Andries 23:13, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

How can you say that? I mean, I give up... You are welcome, more than welcome to add to the Prem rawat article. Just stay within NPOV, and do some research beyond reading the propaganda of hate spewed by Jim and his cronies. --≈ jossi ≈ 23:19, Sep 1, 2004 (UTC)

How do you know that what Jim writes is propaganda? I am really interested to know what you and other premies think. May be I miss something. Andries 23:21, 1 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Responding to the comment you have adressed to me at Talk:Nazism

The following was my response, but since the talk page is inexplicably protected now, I will resort to copying here. Feel free to copy it for me in a relevant discussion field that is not protected.

Addendum: Protection of the discussion has been lifted (my comments). El_C

Responding to the comment you have adressed to me re: 'mysticism in Nazi Germany'

I will separate this from the above for the sakes of readability. Sorry, I only had the opportunity to very briefly glance at the article. I may revist it later at which time I will be at a better position to comment. I am afraid my expertise with respect to Nazism and the occult is lacking. A number of works from list of references I submitted above should prove useful though. El_C

In other languages

Hi Andries... I am feeling much better now that I am no longer editing the Prem Rawat pages... it was too intense and the anonymous threats were the last straw...

Could you help me with this? I have translated my user page into Spanish, but I do not know what to do to get it displayed under "in other languages" on the left navigaton bar of WP. How do you do that?

Thanks -- ≈ jossi ≈ 03:53, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

talk pages

Why did you just delete comments (not all of them yours) from Wikipedia talk:Cite sources? Pending an explanation, I am restoring. This is usually not done: you've effectively edited out someone's response to your comment. -- Jmabel 19:27, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC) Oops, sorry. When you do things like that please leave a comment so it's clear what you did. I'll delete it, with a comment. -- Jmabel 19:54, Sep 12, 2004 (UTC)

Introvige and CESNUR

I'm curious as to whether you have any opinion of Introvigne specifically. And I didn't really mean to criticize him or CESNUR. It's just that, if the internet is to be any guide, there are lots of big accusations made by and against both the (so-called) "cult apologist" and (so-called) "cult-basher" factions. So, as an outsider, it is hard to know which commenters, if any, should be taken seriously. Generally, I am concerned with having an article about Aum Shinrikyo that is accurate and verifiable, but one that does not apologize or whitewash the group. Any assistance you can render toward this is appreciated. - Nat Krause 17:36, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you want to learn about Introvigne, best is to read the extensive materials in their website, or read the article on WP on CESNUR. Andries POV, (correct me if I am wrong, Andries) is that CESNUR and Introivigne are controversial and their work not worthy of recognition as a solid source of information.

I would argue to the contrary as their articles are excellently written and substantiated by a large volume of citacions and references. I encourage you to find out for yourself. http://www.cesnur.org/--≈ jossi ≈ 17:47, Sep 14, 2004 (UTC)

Nat, I do not have an opinion about the quality of Introvigne's article even though it is fact that he is controversial. I really do not know at the moment. Sorry. CESNUR's scholarly works differ much in quality. Some of it is good. Andries 18:53, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re anti-cult movement

Hello, Andries. Sorry for causing damage to article, now I learned the Wiki basics and got the userid: ExitControl. I checked your Sai Baba article and may say it is impressive in terms of amount of information and links. But probably you pay to much attention to quoting various allegations and then balancing them by adding smth like "Sai Baba followers think otherwise". I actually think this Wiki scheme is conter-productive somewhat, as with controversial topics you end up quoting bullshit and don't get to the facts.

I myself changed the Aum Shinrikyo article, but here as an ex-member most of the bullshit I see immediately, self-evident to me. Hope to make the article as large as yours.

Besides, I feel a need to improve the articles on anti-cult movement, cults, mind control and related and seeing your active participation in these hope to cooperate. But I sincerely hope that your dissatisfaction with Sai Baba won't make you support the anti-cult theories.

Hello Exitcontrol, well, I do not know what to believe, except that theories of many anti-cult activists are simplistic. I feel very much harmed by Sathya Sai Baba. I think it is important that people who are interested in a NRM have the ability to make an informed decision before joining. I have thought and read a lot about the subject. Andries 20:11, 14 Sep 2004 (UTC)

We will need to study the subject further. I see you reverted my changes, which is probably good, as I think we need to make more research and rewrite the article completely. I will invite you to see the draft. As to Sathya Sai Baba, I know a guy who was his follower, but later cooled down. He did not say he was harmed, though. Sai Baba is quite popular in Russia, almost mainstream (Rajneesh is very popular as well). Personally I tend to dislike Sai Baba (people who met him mostly talk about miracles and I don't like it), but I suspect that allegations in paedophilia lack factual base. I also read a lot on NRMs, though I prefer to limit myself to scholarly sources. And it seems that anti-cult groups are winning the internet war, but they do not prevail in scholarly circles. So we need to be careful and not to accept their theories as established scientific fact. Don't you think so? I agree that anti-cult theories are simplistic, personally I don't think it's even science, its mythology.

Brainwashing

Andries, hi,

Interesting that you and I have both had contacts with bad gurus. I knew one person, whom her students addressed as Swami. She never tried anything on me, possibly because already at that time I was already old and ugly. (It's just that I am even older and even uglier today.) Another, a man, was the teacher of friends I had known in the U.S., disciples who belonged the organization for which he worked. I went in to visit them (in another country) thinking everyone would be nice like the folks in the little ashram near my student dwelling, but, in this other country the group was extremely sinister. I probably owe my survival to the fact that I had participated in encounter groups run by "trustees" of a therapeutic group for recovering narcotics addicts. (That was a good organization, but it taught you to be tough and to be objective about yourself but also about others.) Otherwise I would be a devotee somewhere, the tool of a taker of minds.

When I heard the tape of the terrorist who was piloting an airliner so that it would crash into the Atlantic, it seemed to me pretty clear that he had been taught to do certain things to shield his mind from the normal fear that should keep people from killing themselves, and from the normal humanity that should keep people from killing innocent people. So I strongly suspect that his masters practice some form of "brainwashing" or "mind control."

One good thing about the brainwashing phenomenon is that we have access to lots of evidence. The article (before I got started on it, anyway) seemed to me to make brainwashing into some kind of vanilla indoctrination exercise that would be put to shame by Marine boot camp. That's not what I know about it.

Please help me with the outline that I have put up. Always I get complaints about "NPOV", and mostly it happens because I am interested in explaining things rather that inserting the CMA (cover me arse) statements such as, "0.0005 percent of people who write in this field believe that the earth is flat." ;-) So if you see anywhere that I have not given due prominence to an alternative point of view, please help me fix it -- or any other problems you see. P0M 00:33, 15 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Re anti-cult movement

Hello, Andries. I checked your Sai Baba article and may say it is impressive in terms of amount of information and links. But probably you pay to much attention to quoting various allegations and then balancing them by adding smth like "Sai Baba followers think otherwise". I actually think this Wiki scheme is counter-productive somewhat, as with controversial topics you end up just quoting bullshit and don't get to the facts.

I feel a need to improve the articles on anti-cult movement, cults, mind control and related and seeing your active participation in these hope to cooperate. But I sincerely hope that your dissatisfaction with Sai Baba won't make you support the anti-cult theories. This is pseudo-science, all these definitions of a cult, mind control theories, deprogramming etc.

P.S. Saw your advice to slow down. Accepted. user ExitControl

Inner peace

Greetings Andries. The Inner peace article as it stands is practically useless, IMHO. It is an introductory sentence or two, a collection of quotes and an inapproriate Category:Maharaji label (which I removed). Too New Agey for my tastes. I can see how Peace of mind should be merged with it, but I would actually prefer the Peace of mind title, myself. My solution, if I was willing to get into it, would be to delete the content of Inner peace and have it as a redirect to Peace of mind. I can see how you've been having problems with it, and I wish you the best. Cheers, Fire Star 20:33, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

What is the problem with an article on "Inner Peace"? Inner peace is very different to peace of mind. I agree that the article is not completed, that is why it has a {{stub}}. Give other editors the chance to add some more content. I intend to do so in the upcoming week. The fact that neither you or Andries believe on inner peace, or that it is too "new agey" for your POV does not mean that it can't be a good article. Check in a week and let me know what you think after I have done my edits.--≈ jossi ≈ 03:51, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

I agree that Inner peace and Peace of mind are different. My criticism is based on the fact that the article is so thin. You have addressed that criticism by saying that you plan to expand it. You are also incredibly presumptuous to publicly state on Andries' talk page what it is that you believe that I, at least, "believe on." Such insults show a thin skin beneath the dignity of a truly peaceful religionist and cast doubt on your motives. I never insulted you, I criticised an article on Wikipedia, I was careful to say twice that it is my opinion and my taste which were challenged, not objective truth, and all on a talk page, no less. Hopefully you can see the difference between that and a personal insult to you. An apology is expected. Fire Star 04:29, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC) (Also posted on Jossi's talk page)

I have not insulted you... What trigger that feeling in you? Maybe is you with the thin skin? Anyone reading my comment and your reply will clearly see that. Relax, Fire Star... :) --≈ jossi ≈

Radical cults, er, cuts

Peace. Sorry I made such big changes and wrote so many rants. I guess I better take some time off.

If you want to revert my changes to cult, go ahead. It'll still be in the history...

Anyway, you're doing good work here with the Prem Rawat series. (I mean, someone has to be a counter-balance to Zappaz ;-)

Maybe you're right and I went too far. I'll chill out and lay back for a while. You da man! --Uncle Ed 19:52, 22 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Cults

Thanks for pointing out to me the recent changes. My impression is that some people post as "information" or "facts" the highly POV claims of some US-based religious groups, including very misleading statements so as to the legal nature of what they discuss. David.Monniaux 12:00, 25 Sep 2004 (UTC)

If you are referring to me. I take exception. This has nothing to do with US-based religious groups. This has to do with a human being's right to pursue his beliefs unecumbered by government. --≈ jossi ≈ 06:57, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but several of the links that you posted as "fact" point to US-based pressure groups, which provide a possibly biased discussion of issues. Let us, for instance, see this article. First, it talks of "hysteria". Hysteria is a highly inflammatory word, not much likely to be used in a fair and balanced factual article.

The discussion on the case of the Jehovah Witnesses pastes on length the claims of the Jehovah Witnesses as well as opinion pieces from American newspapers (which do not yield any factual information about the case), yet totally skirt the legal issues on hand. Certainly, an objective and informed article would have discussed the legal arguments of the government as well... But, hey, this article has obviously been written by somebody who does not know much about French law – a proof is this nonsensical phrase, association culte (the legal word is association cultuelle, a special form of nonprofit private association with special tax exemptions). The article did not even say that a bona fide association cultuelle must, according to the jurisprudence of the Conseil d'État, devote its entire activities to organizing religious worship (thus have no editorial activities), must not exerce political activities and must abide by public order. In that framework, you can better understand the legal arguments of the tax services. (See here for a longer discussion, though this site seems biased against the Witnesses.)

Therefore – yes, I reiterate, this has much to do with US-based religious and pressure groups trying to attract the sympathy of well-meaning, but ignorant Americans by presenting an extremely biased vision of the situation, skirting legal issues and appealing to emotions. David.Monniaux 07:17, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I can see your point, but please note that goverments use "legal" tools to sometimes excert pressure and influence to limit people's freedoms. I am sure that you will agree with me. The Patriot law in the US is a good example. In the case of the Piccard Law, it is clear that although not targeted specifically to NRMs, it can be used to limit followers' of NRM's liberties. That is the contention-- ≈ jossi ≈ 17:26, Sep 26, 2004 (UTC)

This law was actually proposed to increase the liberties of the followers of criminal NRMs, by making it easier for them to have recourse against abuses. David.Monniaux 19:10, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Gee, David, I wished my former guru lived in France, instead of in India. :) Andries 19:32, 26 Sep 2004 (UTC)

As far as I know, those legal dispositions have never been used. It is possible that the judges would take such a restrictive vision that they may be nearly inapplicable in practice. David.Monniaux 13:21, 27 Sep 2004 (UTC)

New religious movement

JoeHenzi here, I was wondering if you could point me in the right direction of some resources. I love reading about different religions, which is why I frequent Wikipedia so much. If you could just point out a book or website and I'll do my best when it comes to putting that in the text for [New religious movement]. I've got a huge project for school this month so it will be hard finding time, but leave me a message on my talk page and I'll get on it. It will give me something to do when the project gets to be too much. JoeHenzi 01:11, 2 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Category: hoaxes

From my talk page:

I do not agree that hoaxes is for possible hoaxes too. If that were the case then we should add the category hoaxes to nearly every religious teacher/guru/prophet/messiah/religion-founder. I do not think that this can be put into practice so I disagree with your proposed policy. Andries 20:20, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Interesting. You're probably right. I had intended my wording to allow the category to, well, categorically include such articles as crop circles and Loch Ness Monster without inciting an edit war of believers vs. nonbelievers. Can you think of some additional wording that addresses your concern? A non-religion clause? Tempshill 20:25, 4 Oct 2004 (UTC)

You wrote: I think the category hoaxes should only be applied if the majority of scholars and scientists on the subject believe that something is a hoax. Andries 07:58, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Well, it sounds like a pretty significant task to merely gather the data to support the contention that a majority of experts believes something, and also we'd lose entries like Apollo moon landing hoax accusations which I think are good to have in the category. Rather than a general filter, I addressed your specific concern by adding to the page: To forestall edit wars, religions and religious figures are excluded from nomination for this category. Let me know if you think this is insufficient. Tempshill 20:35, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Re:Nazism

Have you noticed my recent, extensive edits to Nazism? I am interested in if you think they are an improvement, or ignorant or biased in any way. Cheers, Sam [Spade] 13:43, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

RfA

Now I've got some homework to do. Thank you for your supportive RfA vote and consideration. Fire Star 14:04, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cults

Thanks for noticing my cult checklist article. I thought I would finally take the bull by the horns, since three different articles had substantially the same thousand-word passage of text.

We should refer to the checklists somehow, however, in each of the articles from which I cut it. I forget about that. --Uncle Ed (El Dunce) 17:30, 15 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brainwashing

Hi,

I just saw your message on my Talk page. I dispute just about all of the "brainwashing" content. Since you say you have been a victim of a cult, I suspect that you might question some of the bland assurances contained in the current article. I've already put, in outline form, what I can summarize from memory about Brainwashing, but I'll say a few things here since you are interested. By the way, you may be interested to know that I just about got "taken off" by a cult while I was a resident of a foreign country. I later learned that what I had known in the U.S. as a nice group of people had a murderous reputation in its original home. After my experience I was rather more willing to consider those negative claims.

Anyway... The article suggests that brainwashing is a U.S. developed term created by hysterical people to account for some petty-ante false confessions made during the Korean War by a few U.S. soldiers who were subjected to garden variety duress. Brainwashing is actually a translation of the Chinese term "xi2 nao3" (wash brain). It's a bit too colloquial, so they have a more "clinical" term for it, "si1 xiang3 gai3 zao4" (remodel thought). They developed it using sources that trace from the show trials of the Soviet Union era back to the Inquisition. They made it much more effective and used in on great numbers of their own people, their intent being to sweep away the rather substantial vestiges of traditional Chinese thought. There have been several accounts of those practices made by people who swam to freedom in Hong Kong or otherwise escaped, and Linder and Schein made thorough studies of the phenomenon -- studies whose conclusions are vastly distorted by the website of the guy in Virginia and by whoever paraphrased that article and put it on Wikipedia. (I'm operating on old memories now, but I'm pretty sure I noted substantial borrowing.) The object of "domestic" brainwashing really was a thorough-going change in the beliefs of those subjected to it. What Linder and Schein actually reported was that people with extremely rigid belief systems can be converted and their new beliefs will be strong and resistant to reality testing, but that people whose belief systems are more flexible may be swayed while under direct impact but will resume their earlier beliefs once reality testing again becomes possible for them. As for Korea, they did not give the average prisoner the full treatment. Their objective was to disrupt relations of trust among prisoners and to demoralize them in all ways possible (e.g., if a soldier got a letter from his wife about their beautiful new baby, the prisoner never saw it, but if it was a letter saying she was getting a divorce it was given to him promptly). Then they didn't have to use so many troops to keep them in prison, and of course there was the occasional coerced confession that could be used to their advantage.

By some chance of fate I know several of the people who were imprisoned in China. One priest and two professors (man and wife) wrote books about their experience, which in conversations with them they never gave me any cause to doubt. A third former prisoner, although 10 or 20 years older than I, became a close personal friend. Of all of them, she probably suffered the most. I never tried to encourage her to talk about her experiences, but she never gave me any reason to doubt the main conclusions of Linder and Schein. P0M 01:30, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

P.S. I just read your article. You have seen many of the techniques of "brainwashng" used directly on you. I think that in the case of, e.g., John Clifford, S.J., (whose book you might want to read: In the Presence of my Enemies) you can see the same factors. One of the advantages that the CCP possessed (still possesses, for that matter) is that they actually had people in prison. So they could take their clothes away, they could keep the lights on at all times, they could ruin your sense of being a human being by preventing you from bathing, they had total control of the information available to you, etc., etc. The only thing they couldn't get at was your mind, and even then you had to be acutely aware of their manipulations to survive them. Looking at any one or two techniques I suppose someone could maintain the belief that their behavior is something that is within the range of "normal" human behavior. We have our inculcators of guilt in this country too. However, building on the Inquisition and the USSR's techniques to force confessions, they created an almost seamless system for thought control. The main flaw, from their standpoint, was that they could not return prisoners to the outside world and have them maintain their inculcated beliefs. P0M 01:43, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Brainwashing vs. psychology of cult capture

Having read your recent message, I think I see more clearly what your problem may be. Oddly, it happens that I have just finished trying to teach a little bit on something that may be relevant.

Others have written about the ability of excellent military leaders to seemingly know the mind of the enemy, but what if the "mind of the enemy" is intentionally falsified? General Rommel is one example people who are interested in this kind of thing often give as someone with an excellent ability to know his enemy's intentions. Without involving oneself in unprovable speculations about things like mental telepathy, it is clear that humans process incredible amounts of information on a subconscious level. The information can involve scents, subsonic vibrations, etc., etc., and even subliminal inputs. That is good from a survival standpoint, ordinarily, but it can involve dangers too if one's opponent knows how to meddle with these factors. For instance, prior to the Allied invasion of Europe in World War II, immense efforts were made to form a false picture of Allied intentions. Whole fleets of phony aircraft where created, for instance.

In martial arts what can happen is that one person sends out a signal that is accepted uncritically by the other person at a subconscious level, the second person reacts in a characteristic way to the received information, and so he does what the first person wants him to. If you had a radar-linked, computer controlled anti-aircraft gun and the enemy pilot had a way of replacing true information with false in your computer, then your shots would miss their intended target. It happened to me once in sparring that my opponent fell to the ground three times without my even touching him. I think I know what my subconscious mind did to achieve that result, but I have no way of proving it. But, if true, that would be a demonstration of one person taking over another person's mind for long enough to defeat or capture him.

On the level of one-to-one interactions, there are many factors that one can use to send intentionally false messages to one's target, and in the case of cult acquisition of a new convert those false messages may be used to capture a new asset. I have experienced this technique, and it is quite powerful. Very good confidence operation criminals probably use many of the same techniques, and there must be books written about their methods.

The famous U.S. medical hypnotist Milton Erikson developed the methods he used in psychiatry to help patients because he suffered polio as a child, frequently needed to secure the aid of other people (he gives as an example one time when he needed help to launch a small boat so that he could travel by water), and, without really intending to, discovered methods of securing cooperation from people who were originally little inclined to help. You might find books by or about him helpful.

Anyway, I shouldn't spend too much time today thinking about these things and trying to make sense in a first-draft short essay, so I will just say that brainwashing per se has nothing to do with asset acquisition. As far as I know the CCP just arrested civilians or captured U.N. soldiers. The cults ordinarily do not just kidnap somebody as far as I know. (There was a case in the U.S. involving something called the Simbianese Liberation Front. They captured Patty Hearst and coercively secured her allegiance and cooperation as I recall.) So the cults have to add some "con job" and/or covert hypnosis techniques to their bag of tricks.

After an asset is acquired, the next problem is to keep the person from just walking out. In this regard you might read about therapeutic communities in the U.S. such as Synanon. Yablonski wrote a thick book on that group, and others have made substantial studies. Synanon, Daytop Villiage, Gaudenzia and many others modeled on those groups try to rehabilitate people who have become addicted to heroin and/or other powerful drugs. It is common for residents to have been remanded to one of those groups in lieu of a prison sentence. But there are no walls and there is no intent to keep anyone in Synanon against their will. There is a strong will to secure the resident's agreement to stay there for their own good. I suspect that there may be parallels between what happens in cults that don't use force to keep their members "at home" and what one of those therapeutic communities typically does when a resident shows signs of being ready to return to the streets and to drug use.

One other thing, which I think I mentioned briefly before: it matters greatly whether a person subjected to brainwashing had a "true believer" personality before capture. It turns out to be easier to turn a "true believer" Christian into a "true believer" communist than to turn a person with a flexible view of reality (and maybe a flexible morality) into a staunch communist (or anything else). P0M

P.S. I just got reminded of the Magdalen Launderies in Ireland. Do you know about them? I hope I've got the name right. Women who produced illegitimate children were sent to these Catholic organizations to have their babies, and they ended up doing laundry for them and not having an easy time getting out. see: http://www.netreach.net/~steed/magdalen.html P0M 23:41, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Nazi mysticism

I merged / rewrote. Comments, thought? [[User:Sam Spade|Thomas Jefferson for President]] 17:47, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Split brainwashing article?

Hi, once again.

I have started to make some changes in the brainwashing article. My first attempt was vandalized, but restored by one of the other people interested in that article.

I feel very confident about my grasp of the Chinese brainwashing phenomenon, but not confident at all about the kinds of things that cults do. I believe that I can eventually state clearly and accurately what the real Chinese techniques were. The information is there in the Linder and Schein books, and on top of that it happens that I have known 4 of the people who got the full treatment. Something very definitely happened to these people, and the more they resisted the more drastic were the steps taken to break them.

I wonder what it is like to try to push your way out of a "spiritual retreat" when you are surrounded by a big mob of people. It seems to me that persuasion could slide over into intimidation and intimidation could slide over into outright force. Be that as it may, the four people I knew were in prison cells, not monk's cells, and they stayed there for around 5 years each.

I didn't get any sense from the article you gave me a link to of how you and/or other people were inducted into life in a cult. If I entered a religious order such as the Franciscans and made an oath to leave profane life forever, I think it would be very difficult for me personally to break that oath. At the other extreme, a sociopath would swear to anything and break any oath without feeling anything. There must be many people between these extremes. So the degree of "confinement" may not be clear from the perspective of a second party. But at least if I entered the Franciscans I probably would undergo an examination that would probe my own degree of commitment and its sources. Any ethical organization would presumably make such an assessment.

I can easily imagine a situation in which a person, while not under lock and key, might face strong limitations -- anything from being in a wall-less oasis in the middle of a very hot desert to being penniless and friendless in a big city. Either way one might be hesitant about striking out on one's own.

Can you give me any more insight on this matter?

I can't see how to make the brainwashing article work if half of it is to concern a kind of "brainwashing" that isn't even claimed to really be brainwashing. The claim that cult brainwashing is some sort of smoke and mirrors tends to whitewash the very real abuses visited on prisoners (and ordinary citizens in "people's communes").

Thanks. P0M 02:28, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

thanks for help on "bicycles"

... and if you agree, please vote to "support" for "featured article" status before it falls off the bottom of the page. it now stands about 6 "support" and 2 "object", although it appears there are more "objects" since one person (improperly) voted about 6 times. oh, when i asked my girlfriend "what is it which keeps a bicycle upright?", she answered, "the kick-stand"! I wish it was that simple. As you might see on "discussion", this issue led to a heated discussion. thanks.Sfahey 04:51, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Cult Checklist

I didn't realise the checklist was a quotation from a source. Perhaps it should be placed in Wikisource? In any case, the source should be clearly listed under each checklist (ie source: Ellen Barker "name of book" pg, x). Anyway, you're right, if it is a primary source it shouldn't be copy edited so my apologies. AndyL 22:02, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

yes, I know it should be referenced and it used to be referenced (at least some) but during the big cut an paste moves by Ed Poor the reference information was lost. Andries 22:06, 17 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Your behavior

Andries, I take exception to the accusations you are leveling against me in relation to my edits and contributions to the Prem Rawat and related articles. I find your comments against me in the ex-premie Forum8, quite offensive to say the least. I also take exception to your claims to be co-author of the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. You were not. I expect you will:

1. Stop making these comments;
2. Publicly declare that you will stop making these unwarranted acussations;
3. Tell your friends at Forum8 that you are not the co-author of that article.

Then, and just maybe, you will regain my respect. --Zappaz 22:45, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I will give you the benefit of the doubt for now. You have and continue making false accusations against me, cloaked as lack of understanding of my position and using innuendo that borders on the irrational. As for the co-author issue, you can call yourself a contributor (and a small one if that) but not a co-author. To be a co-author you should have taken a lead role in the editing process, and you were clearly not. My feeling is that you are trying to ingratiate yourself with the critics of Prem Rawat for reasons that I encourage you to explore further and be sincere with yourself about it. --Zappaz 23:35, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think now you make a false accussations against me i.e. that I make cloaked false accusations towards you. Please provide proof of that accusation towards me or retract it. There is however proof that I defended you several times. I sincerely think that a person who initially knows nothing about Prem Rawat would have difficulty defending him after reading the information on both the ex-premie website and the tprf and elan vital websites. And hence I sincerely can not understand why anyone who is not a follower would defend Prem Rawat. Andries 00:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The fact that you cannot understand why I 'defend' PR against the viscious diatribes of the ex-premies, does not give you the right to level accusations against me. --Zappaz 00:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

When and where did I accuse you of what? I did not make any accusations against you. Andries 01:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I am still not convinced that the word co-author is wrong but I will try to look it up, and correct it in the meantime. And besides you complained some time ago that the article had greatly expanded after you were only one evening away, which was largely due to my edits. Remember that? So you have to admit that I was not a small contributor. Many of those edits have remained though rephrased by Gary D. Andries 00:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your relpy is laughable. You were not a main contributor to that article. --Zappaz 00:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I continue to disagree. Andries 01:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The reason why I "ingratiate" myself with the critics is very easy to understand. I know what it feels like to come to the conclusion that you have wasted years of your life by following and being devoted to an unreliable guru. It is not a nice experience, believe me, not something I would recommend to other people. For that reason I feel a lot of kinship with ex-premies. Andries 00:15, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Zappaz, another similarity that justifies generalization is the unwillingness of Elan Vital and Prem Rawat to admit any mistake and to put all the blame on people who because disillusioned and spoke out, and even write that scholars who dare to make critical remarks must be biased. I find very unfair. Andries 17:40, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)

You are making generalizations that are not warranted. If you have a personal issue with Gurus, it does not give you the right to use Wikipedia as a form of therapy. That is unacceptable behavior for an editor. Get some phsycological help if you need to. That will help you more than obsessively pursuing these edit battles. --Zappaz 00:43, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

well, I think there are enough similiarities in this case to make a generalization i.e. unreliable beyond reasonable doubt and encouraging devotion and surrender . I also wrote about gurus without making any accusation e.g. Swami Roberto. Andries 01:14, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just explain what are you doing at 2:30 AM here in WP. Accept the fact that this is an obsession of yours. --Zappaz 01:24, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

If my wife knew the wild hours I have been on WP, she'd probably divorce me. I propose we all try hard to answer the question, "Can't we all just get along?" Hi, guys. Haven't spoken with either of you two in awhile. Nice to see you again. --Gary D 01:37, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Hello Gary. I do not know if you have followed the thread above and the acussations made by Andries and others on the talk pages and the critics discussion forum, but I had more than enough.. My libertarian blood boils when confronted with such attitudes as the ones they have demonstrated. Hence, I do not find it easy to "just get along' with the likes of Andries. It is a tall order to do so. --Zappaz 05:48, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I must confess I have not been following any of it; I just happened to stop by. BTW, its being a tall order is precisely what makes it worth doing, LOL; if it were eeeasy, Somerset Maugham wouldn't have called it "The Razor's Edge," and the Sermon on the Mount would have been pointless surplusage. Be seeing you... --Gary D 07:31, Nov 11, 2004 (UTC)

Thanks Gary for the insight. I will cool off for a while. Boiling blood is not a good thing :) --Zappaz 12:54, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Prejudice and Hinduism

I am not a Hindu but I see some ignorance and prejudice against Hinduism in Wikipedia. Andries 20:01, 11 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Only against Hinduism? ≈ jossi ≈ 21:45, Nov 10, 2004 (UTC)

Jeremiah Duggan

Andries, thanks for your comments about Jeremiah Duggan's death. I take your point that the death of a man after attending a LaRouche meeting can't be shown to be connected, but as a British coroner's inquest has decided there is a prima facie connection, then I felt it was worth mentioning on some of the LaRouche pages. One spooky thing is that the police discovered a LaRouche/Schiller Institute manager had retained Jeremiah's passport, so he wouldn't have been able to get back home without her consent. (He died in Germany but lived in France.) Anyway, thanks for your input. user:SlimVirgin

Indonesia

Thanks for pointing out the Indonesia/Java problem, Andries. I'll change it. Best wishes, Slim 17:58, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, Andries, the SlimVirgin, who as her Talk page says, prizes accuracy above all, has now accurately described the source of her legend as Javanese. Many thanks!  :-) Best, Slim 19:42, Nov 19, 2004 (UTC)

Comments

Thanks for your supportive comments. Unfortunately, I'm only a handful of arbitrator votes away from being banned for months for taking these delusional editors on. VeryVerily 10:53, 20 Nov 2004 (UTC)

?

[3]? This is an extremely odd time and place to be mentioning this. Why would you put your comments there of all places, rather than on Talk:Nazi mysticism, my talk page, or User_talk:Andries#Nazi_mysticism_2 for example? Even the bottom of Talk:Adolf_Hitler would have made more sense. It was only by chance that I happened to notice them where they were, nestled in with my references. I must say I am rather confused, and would like some explanation as to why you avoided discussing this until now, and why you did not choose a more appropriate time and place. [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 13:47, 1 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My reply is here. Cheers, [[User:Sam Spade|Sam Spade Arb Com election]] 10:21, 2 Dec 2004 (UTC)

My views

You asked: Zappaz, I would appreciate it if you could explain more e.g. on my user page why you hold this view. I simply cannot understand why you, while you are not a follower, can have such an opinion. Andries 00:17, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

This is my answer:

• The fact that you do not understand why I hold these views only points to the fact of your own bias.
• I surely understand your pain of being a disillusioned ex-follower, but I find it commensurable with my research to see you siding with other ex-followers. It is only natural.
• I have studied extensively the subject of apostasy throughout history (and I am planning a major addition to the Apostasy article as soon as the all time-consuming Hate Group dispute ends) and I can tell you that I am not surprised by your position.
• There are many scholars that profess similar POVs to mine. You should not see that as difficult to accept.

Andries, fact is that in the context of the hate group article, the ex-premies kick and scream when they are objected to what they see as false allegations made against them. What would you say of PR's followers that during the editing process of the criticism article, kicked and screamed when in their view false allegations of impropriety were presented against PR with the only reference being an apostate's testimony? Why didn't you help them there? Do you see the dual standars, Andries? It is these dual-standards that I am combating. I see a concerted effort by anti-cultists to throw negativity around 'all emerging religions. And I will do everything in my power as a WP editor to provide a counter-balance to right-wing anti-cultists as well as nuveau-left anti cultists.

Hope this help clarify my position. --Zappaz 03:25, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Article Licensing

Hi, I've started a drive to get users to multi-license all of their contributions that they've made to either (1) all U.S. state, county, and city articles or (2) all articles, using the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike (CC-by-sa) v1.0 and v2.0 Licenses or into the public domain if they prefer. The CC-by-sa license is a true free documentation license that is similar to Wikipedia's license, the GFDL, but it allows other projects, such as WikiTravel, to use our articles. Since you are among the top 1000 Wikipedians by edits, I was wondering if you would be willing to multi-license all of your contributions or at minimum those on the geographic articles. Over 90% of people asked have agreed. For More Information:

• Multi-Licensing FAQ - Lots of questions answered
• Multi-Licensing Guide
• Free the Rambot Articles Project

To allow us to track those users who muli-license their contributions, many users copy and paste the "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" template into their user page, but there are other options at Template messages/User namespace. The following examples could also copied and pasted into your user page:

Option 1

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions, with the exception of my user pages, as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

OR

Option 2

I agree to [[Wikipedia:Multi-licensing|multi-license]] all my contributions to any [[U.S. state]], county, or city article as described below:

{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}

Or if you wanted to place your work into the public domain, you could replace "{{DualLicenseWithCC-BySA-Dual}}" with "{{MultiLicensePD}}". If you only prefer using the GFDL, I would like to know that too. Please let me know what you think at my talk page. It's important to know either way so no one keeps asking. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 15:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Controversy

It's a shame that you've blanked out the page on your satire. I had to look at the page history to read it. I had myself a good laugh. I had no idea that I was member of a cult! But I still believe that Jimbo is coming on an asteroid some day to take me away to the afterlife for my contributions to Wikipedia. – Ram-Man ^{(comment) (talk)}[[]] 15:41, Dec 9, 2004 (UTC)

• One of Sollog's sockpuppets has now plagiarized you, Andries! I was wondering how long it would take. It has been moved to BJAODN, but there is also a link from the Sollog article's talkpage, if you are interested. Fire Star 04:58, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I was the one who put it on BJAODN before anyone told me it was yours. I thought that Sollog had struck back at the criticism of him by turning it around and calling us a cult. I guess that shows that your satire was very well done indeed!

The version posted to Talk:Sollog is now in the archive there: Talk:Sollog/archive4#Is wikipedia a cult?. The version on BJAODN (here) doesn't give you credit as the author. I would not have put it on BJAODN if I had known that a genuine contributor wrote it. Do you want me to add your name? Remove it from BJAODN? Leave it as it is? JamesMLane 06:00, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

I have no objections to your reference to me. Adam 09:49, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Charismatic authority cleanup

I will see what I can do, but atm I don't have any ideas how to expand the article. Have you checked the Wikipedia:Cleanup page for ideas where to ask for more help? Take care, --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 23:02, 25 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Kristallnacht

Just thought I'd let you know I've found a cite for a question you asked absolutely ages ago on Talk:Kristallnacht... a citation for the billion-mark fine can be found in The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich, chapter 13. Shimgray 02:46, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Reply re. People's Temple

I have multiple things to say, but first I'll start with business. Thanks for your input re. Leo Ryan, and as per your suggestion I've added a bit of detail on his early life, which I'd be pleased if you'd look over and offer comments. Also, I'm quite flattered by your request to work on the Jim Jones page, which is quite skimpy given the prominence and importance of the subject. I'd be happy to give it a look and see what I could do, although it may be a little time, as I'm trying to work on the fascism page as well as handling an AMA case.

The second thing is that your Joan Rivers edit mistake is one of the funniest things I've seen on Wikipedia in a while. Admittedly, whoever wrote that was a very funny vandal, unlike so many. I think I could learn to live with them if they'd all be so witty.

The third thing is I was wondering if you might send me a copy of your (apparently quite contentious) "Wikipedia as a cult" satire. I'm sorry you were made to take it down; everyone here, myself included, can sometimes take things a bit too seriously. Such humor is extremely useful for us to remember the spirit in which we engaged in the project. Wally 23:42, 2 Jan 2005 (UTC)

P.S. You might consider removing some of the comments on this page. It's a trifle long.

Longevity Myths

The purpose of the Longevity myths article is to highlight fraudulent claims,the problems they causeand the history of the phenomenon...not talk about all claims true and false.Your retitling of the article and desire for "NPOV" seem to miss the point entirely.Any genuine documented claim belongs under supercentenarian.--Louis Epstein/le@put.com/12.144.5.2 04:56, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Andrew Cohen

Andries, I wonder if you would be interested in helping us NPOV-ize the Andrew Cohen article. The current one is basically an advertisement. --Goethean 22:34, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Sportpalast

Hallo Andries, die von dir verlinkte Sportpalastrede ist NICHT die von 1943 sondern die von 1933 nach der Machtübernahme. Die Rede vom "Totalen Krieg" war die von 1943. Ist auf der Quellenseite auch blöd angegeben. Gruß.Thomas h 11:35, 19 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Prem Rawat split

I did look at them.

Prem Rawat is (almost) all favorable. Criticism of Prem Rawat is, of course, all critical. How can you say call that anything but a "split on view?"

A split on topic would be fine, and I suggest that Prem Rawat's life and the movement today (containing criticism) would be one logical division.

The 32K limit is a guideline, not a hard limit. Virtually no modern browsers have problems with it. >32K articles should eventually be cut down so that all browsers can deal with them but it's never a reason to do anything hasty. Dpbsmith (talk) 13:13, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Love bombing on VfD

You might be interested in Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Love bombing.

Cults

I just wrote Opposition to cults. Want to try merging this somewhere? -- Uncle Ed (talk) 21:17, Mar 10, 2005 (UTC)

Auschwitz

Hi Andries, to answer your query, Auschwitz II-Birkenau was an extermination camp. SlimVirgin 22:38, Mar 19, 2005 (UTC)

Kristallnacht

Can you please read my comment on Talk:Kristallnacht. Thanks -- Obradović Goran (ta^lk 15:40, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

re: Criticism of Prem Rawat

A few days ago, you left me a message about this article. Your message seemed to imply that mediation had been attempted and failed. I apologize for taking so long to get back to you. Is this still a current issue? If so, can you please give me a synopsis of the attempts taken so far to achieve concensus? (And please remember that I know none of the players in this dispute nor any of the issues. My sole contact so far was to document the conclusion of the VfD discussion.) By the way, I should also warn you that I will have family commitments that will keep me away from Wikipedia for several days - perhaps a week. If this is time-sensitive, I might not be the best person to help. Rossami (talk) 05:40, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Survey of Hindu Organisations

hey, this is regard to your comment on the Survey of Hindu organisations page. I have taken a lot of trouble in collecting the info that is put out there. Insted of deleting it, could you make it more sturctured or anything of that sort ? Currently i am bit busy and your help will be appreciated. Ramashray 11:32, 18 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

One or more anonymous editors are persistently deleting the "Rebuttals of criticisms" section (and sometimes everything afterwards too, including the categories). I've reverting them because they are undescribed deletions. I am hoping that you (and other non-anonymous editors) are able to use judgement as to which links properly belong. If you have any insight in how to best resolve this matter that would be helpful. It may just blow over on its own. Cheers, -Willmcw 11:57, May 5, 2005 (UTC)

I do not make edits in bad faith

You may consider my edits against in guru against NPOV but I sincerely believe that I make good edits. Why is it so difficult to accept different perspectives in the article on gurus? The Hindu view on gurus is just one of many possible. Andries 20:34, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I told you that I was done with this conversation. You believe that the article on gurus should be at least 50% criticisms of gurus. I believe that gurus are an integral part of Eastern religion and the article should discuss the concept as a part of Eastern religion. You are only interested in using the article to broadcast unsubstantiated allegations. I consider that writing in bad faith. You cannot be reasoned with. I am through wasting my time with you. --goethean 21:47, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Hindu bashing, etc...

We've had a few debates before, most recently regarding hare krishnas, and more divisively regarding nazi mysticism, but I havn't found you to be a "hindu basher". I assume that you have been taken the wrong way in your likely opposition to the guru concept? I'd like to discuss the matter and hopefully help produce some sort of resolution. I'm very pro-hindu myself btw, indeed as far as Indian politics go I'd be hindutva. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:00, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

We agree about guru's (I think), and I think your getting treated harshly in the talk page. But they do have a point. The few times we interacted, we never really communicated very effectively. The nazi mysticism thing never went anywhere, and the hare krishna subject was never entirely solved to anyones satisfaction, to my recollection. I think its very important for you to focus on being a more intimate and comprehensive communicator. Anti-guru criticism has a place, but shouldn't dominate the guru article, IMO. What say you? Sam Spade 20:29, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

Your vandalism to my work

Andries, I still wait for apologies for your extremely rude behavior, when you mass reverted without actually bothering to check the details of my great efforts at improving the quality of the article of Germany, of which each edit was carefully crafted and explained. gidonb 00:29, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Andries, don't apologize. You were perfectly right to revert. - Heimdal 13:56, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

Joseph Buhler

I removed the disputed tag you added. Could you explain why the Joseph Buhler page is not neutral? freestylefrappe 22:18, May 11, 2005 (UTC)

Greater Serbia

Are you going to hang around a bit on the Greater Serbia page? If so welcome. And that won't change even should it be me who you have to pull up on NPOVDejvid 17:47, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Guru

I turned it into a redirect. If content was merged the history should be preserved somewhere. - SimonP 13:22, May 18, 2005 (UTC)

Knecht ruprect

Do you know much about this legend? I really want to differentiate the black peters from the obviously different knecht ruprecht of Paganism in the Eastern Alps. Any further help, advice, or informations would be quite appreciated. Cheers, 10:39, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Ah, ok, thanks anyway, Sam Spade 15:24, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

article size

I have no problem with articles of up to 60k, if they are well organized. The 32k threshold seems rather arbitrary, or based on technical restrictions that do not apply anymore for most systems. But I do think that articles may be morphed into summary style, exporting material to specialized articles, much before they reach 60k, or even 40k. This should be a rather uncontroversial procedure that anyone can do, and I don't really see the pressing need for a "requests" page, where tasks will just pile up for "other people" to do. The problem on the Germany article is that editor's won't allow the shortening, so each point has to be discussed and fought over. dab (ᛏ) 09:54, 23 May 2005 (UTC)

Your comment

I guess for me the question is whether all of it is notable or not. Sourced, sure. But it spends more time on it than is really needed considering its notability or importance or whatever other adjective someone might use. (WP:NPOV: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute). It doesn't need such detail, especially given that the rest of the article is about two lines long. From WP:NPOV: The only other important consideration is that while a fact is not POV in and of itself, adding facts, no matter how well cited, from only one side of a debate is a POV problem. So work for balance. Find facts that aren't from one side or the other and cite the source. Thanks for caring. · Katefan0^(scribble) 19:32, May 23, 2005 (UTC)

Image:Bala Sai Baba.jpg

Image deletion warning

The image Image:Bala Sai Baba.jpg has been listed at Wikipedia:Possibly unfree images. If the image's copyright status cannot be verified, it will be deleted. If you have any information on the source or licensing of this image, please go there to provide the necessary information.

Burgundavia (✈ take a flight?) 00:20, May 26, 2005 (UTC)

Featured article category

Hi, thanks for contributing! The page has just been created, so any suggestions for categories are more than welcome. --Silversmith Hewwo 15:25, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Message

Please don't take this as a personal attack, it is not. I have written many articles and am now in the process of reviewing others. We merely share the same interest in New Religious Movements. Also, thank you for providing help with the deletion process, I promise not to abuse it and will only apply it to articles that don't meet the proper requirements. As you know the review process is a healthy one for discussion. Thank you for your message.

visnu:yhwh

hm, you'll hardly claim Vishnu is the only god in Hinduism? Yhwh is "a god" in Abrahamic religions, only he also happens to be the only god there, so you can as well say, he's the god, or God. I know Vishnu is taken to be "the God" in Hinduism, but that still makes him one among several "the Gods", so it's safe to say he is a Hindu god. That's just terminology, though, I don't think there is any factual diagreement here (unlike the etymology question). dab (ᛏ) 06:50, 30 May 2005 (UTC)

Generalizations

Look, Andries, generalizations are always bad, regardless of which side of a controversy you are on. How do you think I feel when I hear people calling me "Jew!" or "you are a brainwashed cult member!"? This society we live in is one of sound bites and name calling. We want everything labelled in little boxes. We invent labels as a way to assert control over things we do not understand. WP is a bit different inasmuch that at least you get to attribute these name callings, rather than advocate for or against them. That is as small step, imo. ≈ jossi ≈ 05:43, May 31, 2005 (UTC)

lots of edits, not an admin

Hi - I made a list of users who've been around long enough to have made lots of edits but aren't admins. If you're at all interested in becoming an admin, can you please add an '*' immediately before your name in this list? I've suggested folks nominating someone might want to puruse this list. Thanks. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:04, Jun 10, 2005 (UTC)

RfA thanks

Thank you for your support for my adminship. I see you are overdue for a nomination too. I'm sure you'd receive broad support. Cheers, -Willmcw 06:43, Jun 22, 2005 (UTC)

eerste nl.wikimedia.org ontmoeting

ik zou iedereen graag willen uitnodigen te overwegen of zij een rol willen en/of kunnen spelen in de oprichting van een nederlandse wikimedia-organisatie. een eerste ontmoeting wordt momenteel georganiseerd, zie daarvoor hier, op de nl.wikimedia.org wiki. er zijn nog vele stappen te nemen, en meer wikianen nodig, om e.e.a. op verantwoorde wijze verder te ontwikkelen. Radiant_>|< 10:49, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

American Checkers

Did you move that Checkers page that was in the Department of fun? If not then do you know who did? Jaberwocky6669 19:47, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

Checkers

Because they dont have anything that I dont know. Jaberwocky6669 July 2, 2005 18:25 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome

Bedankt voor het welkomswoord! Ik ben met name actief op de Nederlanstalige wikipedia maar zo nu en dan wijzig ik ook wat kleine zaken op de Engelse als ik toevallig iets tegenkom. Overigens ben ik niet van plan me teveel te mengen in de vaak hoog oplopende discussies, maar in dit geval kon ik het even niet laten. Goede wijziging binnen het artikel Blackface overigens! Groetjes, Lankhorst 23:09, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

Blackface and Zwarte Piet

Hey. I appreciate your add-on to the article, but could I ask you to include additional information? (Don't worry if your English isn't perfect; that can be fixed easily enough). I can guess, but I'd rather someone who knows clarify: Why? (Presumably in reaction to criticism about the racism of the tradition. But who has been agitating for it -- and what exactly do you mean by "paint[ing] Zwarte Piet"? Are we talking store displays and commercial packaging and that sort of thing? Or, are we talking about the Zwarte Pieten on the street painting their faces different colors? Are the colors representative of humankind, or are they purely fantasy colors like purple or blue or something? (The reader can't tell from your cryptic add-on.) And when did this (presumably failed) trend start? (Did you follow the link to Boom Chicago near the bottom of the page? I thought the video was amusing. :p) Thanks. Peace 2 u. deeceevoice 23:56, 15 July 2005 (UTC)

I don't remember any serious content-related disputes in the past related to this article. As far as I can remember, the writing of it went quite quickly and fairly smoothly. The only reason it was denied featured-article status before its the lack of references. But, as with any article, a little tweaking never hurts. Peace. deeceevoice 22:45, 16 July 2005 (UTC)

About "over wikifying"

Actually, it already is a quality article :p. But I don't think I'm "over wikifying" the piece. The example you give of "chocolate" is repeated in numerous articles on the site, where the word has been wikified in much the same context. I believe I have been selective in giving the piece a final once-over, removing duplicates and wikifying others. However, if you feel it is excessive -- as with all other kinds of edits -- then, of course, you are perfectly free to make changes. deeceevoice 22:01, 21 July 2005 (UTC

Acetone peroxide

Thanks for the not on acetone peroxide. I think you're probably right. I'm not really that worried about helping mnad bombers though - it's more kids experiomenting and hurting themselves that worries me. Perhaps we need a policy "wikipedia shouldn't recklessly tell minors how to blow themselves up". <G> 62.253.64.15 15:50, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Scepticism

Well, you sound ideal from my point of view, though the other parties might not like it. --Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 22:10, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2

Hi, Andries -- I thought you'd probably already know that Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/List of purported cults/2 was happening, but I just looked and didn't see any comment from you, so I thought I'd give you a heads-up. (It was initiated by Pjacobi, the same editor who initiated Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Criticism of Prem Rawat, and frankly there's a lot of Do As I Say Not As I Do from the usual suspects...) -- Antaeus Feldspar 00:24, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Refrain from personal attacks

I do not appreciate your acussations and your personal attack on Talk:Rick Ross. Either you consider me a fellow editor that has opposing view to yours but that can work together despie our differences, or our ability to contribute to this encyclopedia will suffeer greatly . I would appreciate an apology, and make it sincere, if you could. Thanks. --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 00:42, 23 July 2005 (UTC)

Love bombing

You wrote:

Do you know a cult where I can get love bombed? I like it. It seems that the real ones where you can get loved bombed have died out here in the Netherlands. I agree that love bombing in Wikipedia is lousy in spite of its declaration as an official policy.

Sorry. When I attended a Quaker meeting, someone shook hands with me as I entered, and everyone shook hands with each other as I left. I'm afraid that's the most love I've ever been bombed with. Wait, when I attended my third meeting of the local chapter of the Barbershop Harmony Society, everyone stood in a circle around me and sang "You're as welcome as the flowers in May." I joined the chapter, so I guess it worked. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:39, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

Shall we form a love bombing committee for new Wikipedians? Andries 21:32, 24 July 2005 (UTC)

To use an old colloquial catch-phrase—which may not even be in much use any more—

Let's not, and say we did. Dpbsmith (talk) 21:41, 24 July 2005 (UTC) (That phrase is used for joking dismissal of ideas...)

Swami Roberto

Hablas espanyol? The article is Vod'ed at the Spanish web.--Jondel 04:08, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

Childlove

Hello, i was fixing some of the links to the redirect pages and came up to your page saying "[[Childlove]] does not explain enough the dangers of childlove but I am not going to the trenches of editing this article". Just to let you know that the article Childlove is in fact a redirect to Childlove movement, thus if you wish to edit it please edit the main article. Thanks. Beta_M ^talk, |^contrib (Ë-Mail)

On Abraham Kovoor

I request you to go through some recent edits done on the page on Abraham Kovoor. To correct it I reverted the page to an earlier version. Some anonymous users are using this page (by deleting images & adding material not very relevant to the page) to promote an individual/group which is not correct. They have been doing this without giving any explanation in the talk page.Why can't we block this page?MANOJTV 05:24, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

Wolf Messing

Thank you for your comment on my talk page. If the article is inaccurate you should change it. The "factual accuracy" tag is generally used when there's an unresolved dispute between editors, but that doesn't seem to be the case here. --Ian Pitchford 13:58, 4 August 2005 (UTC)

WP:NOR

Hoi, ik vrees dat ik geen tijd heb om die lap tekst te gaan vertalen. Maar als er een voorstel voor is zal ik dat zeker steunen (het is trouwens een van de 'founding principles' dus in feite hoeft hier niet veel discussie over te zijn). Radiant_>|< 09:02, August 8, 2005 (UTC)

Ex-Premie extremists

You wrote I do not think that ex-premies are extremists. Yes, a few have done inappropriate actions, like "Emile" who published an anti-Ron Geaves website and John MacGregor made a minor offense and he was sued into bankruptcy for this. Mike Finch defines ex-premies as former premies, not as anti-premies. I think one of the reasons for this polarized situation between premies and ex-premies is the oversensitivity of some current followers for any criticism of Rawat. (I felt harassed too when former followers contacted me with negative information about my guru because it was very painful. In hindsight however it was no harassment though.) Andries 18:20, 16 August 2005 (UTC)>

How can you defend these people after what they have done and continue to do? They hide the true nature of their attacks, that is personal animosity, lack of responsibility for their life choices all coated with a a sad case of lovelessness. I am a person of peace, I live and let live. I reject to be included by default in their group, just because I was once a follower of Maharaj ji. Please don't send me more messages. I am not interested. Peace brother, peace.--Menyo

Three revert rule

You have been blocked for 24 hours under the three revert rule. If you wish to appeal please contact another administrator or the mailing list.Geni 21:46, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

re: Korps Nationale Reserve

You asked if it is acceptable to write a stub about this topic while the undeletion discussion continues. I think you should go ahead but offer that advice with a few cautions. First, the stub you create can still be a stub but should be significantly more than the mere link in the original version. Second, you should go back to the undeletion discussion and clearly explain that you created an entirely new article. That way, the undeletion participants will not be confused by the blue link and that we don't have to restore history just to preserve GFDL.

The other question I would ask you to consider is the title. This is, after all, the English Wikipedia. Is this the right title for the stub you want to write or should the stub be created at an english translation of the title? Is there a common english name for this organization? Rossami (talk) 20:02, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

I had just about enough of your personal attacks!

I had just enough of your personal attacks against me. Once more Andries, and I will put a formal complaint against your behavior via the RfC process. Your behavior is appalling and unsuitable. ENOUGH IS ENOUGH! (Yes I am royally pissed off) --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 02:12, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

You called me ignorant, stupid and an hypocrite, and more than once. I ask you to keep your opinion of me to yourself. One more personal attack, and I am placing a User-conduct RfC to formally complain about your behavior. I will not tolerate being spoken the way you have done. Who the hell do you think you are? Who gave you the right to speak to me that way? --ZappaZ File:Yin yang.png 05:23, 5 September 2005 (UTC)

NPOV dispute at Surat Shabd Yoga article

If you would be so kind, please take a look at - and make any needed edits to - the Surat Shabd Yoga article to help improve it and ensure it reflects NPOV. Thanks, — RDF ^talk 20:08, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Hallo Andries

Ich schreibe gerade ein bisschen auf der deutschen Wikipedia am EV - Artikel herum, wenn du vielleicht mal Zeit hast , gegen zu lesen und auch die Talkpage zu überfliegen. Grüße. Thomas h 17:47, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

DE-Wiki

Well, I think they do a much better job of assuring that every article is well-organized, and their best articles are of very high quality. I wouldn't say though that it is more useful, however, because it still has a lot of major gaps. Tfine80 23:27, 2 October 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei and cult issue

Regarding your comments in the talk page:

I understand your point Andries. The only thing I can say is that this article is not a discussion of apostasy per se or about cults per se. It is an allegation and response article on Opus Dei. As a solution, may I propose that we add in the allegations section some things which counter the selected quotes in the response section. You may choose them and I will check. Marax 07:18, 3 October 2005 (UTC)

Category:charismatic religious leaders

I'm sorry you disagree with me, but please note, that is all this is, just a disagreement. I do not wish to see objective valuations placed in the categorisation structure, and believe the term Charismatic to be a value judgement, since it is not a factual statement but rather an objective one. Steve block talk 12:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Steve, sorry for butting in, but I suspect some of the disagreement here might be due to language misunderstandings. For instance, you're using "objective" here in a way that suggests you really mean "subjective". "Subjective" statements are the ones that are based on the perceptions, judgements and value judgements of the person making them. As well, I must wonder if you're confusing "charisma" in the sense of personal magnetism for "charismatic authority" -- authority deriving from personal characteristics. That's a confusion that many people in the discussion seem to be suffering from. -- Antaeus Feldspar 21:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Apostasy

Hi. If a person converts from agnosticism, for different example, do they fit the "sociological definition of an apostate"? Does Manichaeism have a notion of "orthodoxy" and "apostasy"? As far as I can tell, they do not. Apostasy does not mean "convert to Christianity", or all converts to Christianity should be in the list of apostates, which is meaningless. — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 20:37, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

The sociological meaning of the word, as you've defined it, would apply to any convert from any religious persuasion to another religious persuasion. Atheism is a religious movement with an orthodoxy; would a convert to Christianity from atheism be an "apostate"? New age sects have no orthodoxy but they are a religious movement. Would a convert to Christianity who once was a follower of some cyber-guru be an "apostate"? If a convert to Christianity concludes that Wikipedia is a religious cult, is he an apostate?

My point is that Augustine did not apostasize from Manichaeism, if there is no notion of "standing" in the religion. If Manichaeism is like the other pseudo-Christian gnostic and mystery cults of the time, Augustine left the influence of the movement behind, when he became convinced of the truth of Christianity. He did not "fall away", if there is no notion of standing (is there such a notion?). — Mark (Mkmcconn) ** 21:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for your message

Thanks for your message, Andries. I am sorry to hear what you said. I sincerely hope I can do something to help. You can be sure I will pray about it and pray for you...very much. If you wish, I will find ways to strengthen the part of the cult allegations, so you do not have to deal with this issue directly. Thanks again for your message. Best regards. Marax 10:24, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

Just saw your note

I just saw your note, Andries. I have been very busy and moreover, I also had problems opening the account you asked me to read. Anyway, I was just able to read it and I feel sorry for what happened. I realize that there are many types of religious organizations. Now I grasp how complex this issue is. I will have to spend some time to study it more. Andries, you can rely that I will continue praying for this. Hasta luego! Marax 08:46, 13 October 2005 (UTC)

Reply to your NPOV tag at cult section of Opus Dei

Please check my reply to your comments at the talk page. Hope my reply takes care of your comments. :) :) Lafem 01:17, 10 October 2005 (UTC)

your vote on my RfA

Please note that you voted on an RfA (mine) that was alreday closed. (The notice at the top of that age reads: The following discussion is preserved as an archive of a successful request for adminship. Please do not modify it.. Please follow the procedures and revert your late addition to a closed RfA. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:23, 15 October 2005 (UTC)

gemütlich

Andries, what does "gemütlich" mean? I see the article Gemütlichkeit, but I don't quite understand what you meant when you used the word on Talk:The Twelve Tribes, could you explain it to me? thanks a bunch--Kewp (t) 19:06, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Also, I was wondering what you thought of the word "cult" in the article? User:Timkroehler does not seem to think it's NPOV...--Kewp (t) 19:13, 20 October 2005 (UTC)

Re:

Please see Talk:Channeling_(mediumistic)#Page_move. Cheers, Sam Spade 23:06, 22 October 2005 (UTC)

A "Spirituality" portal

Hi Andries,

Some editors have been discussing the possibility of creating a “Spirituality” portal. What do you think of the idea? — Richard_RDF^talk 14:41, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

I entered some basics to get the ball rolling. I look forward to your participation in the Spirituality WikiProject and reading your contributions to the Spirituality portal. :-) — Richard_RDF^talk 00:45, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

TfD nomination of Template:Spirituality

Template:Spirituality has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Spirituality. Thank you. — Richard_RDF^talk 17:45, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

UN 60th

Andries, will you read my changes at [4], concering the 60th thing? i think it should look the same here.Thomas h 22:58, 12 November 2005 (UTC)

Opus Dei: introvigne and schonborn

Hi Andries, I shortened the quote from Schonborn and added the following to the cult response part of the article.

As regards former members, Dr. Introvigne, in his presentation to the Commission on Security and Cooperation in Europe and the House International Relations Committee in Washington DC, states that disgruntled former members who dramatically reverses their loyalties "are but a minority of the larger population of ex-members of any given religious minority, and should not, without further investigation, be considered as representative of ex-members in general." [5] Cardinal Schönborn states: "It is, however, unjustified, to present personal difficulties within a community as if they were a general experience."

Kindly check if you think it is fitting and fine with you. At least, this statement no longer generalizes on the "unreliability" of apostate testimony. It merely states that these testimonies are not representative of ex-members in general. This is an echo of the Schonborn statement from the sociological point of view. Marax 04:11, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

ANDRIES !!

Will you please join in at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Willmcw#Come_on , Willmc confirms that 64.81.88.140 is Jossi. Thomas h 08:36, 15 November 2005 (UTC) Well now he relativated it a bit, but in his eyes the entry done as an answer to me about UNA was from Jossi Thomas h 10:07, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

I reverted the edits by Miljoshi...

Dear Andries, I have replied to your comments at [Talk:Guru]. Best Regards. Miljoshi 08:05, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Reender Kranenborg

I created a stub article for Reender Kranenborg. I could not find much info in English, so maybe you can expand. Just please do not add books that are not in the English language (these are listed in nl:Reender Kranenborg. Thanks. ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 04:24, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Sergei Torop

Hi Andries, I changed your "merge from" tag to simply a "merge" tag. I would say both names Sergei Torop and Vissarion are equally known. So it might be better to use a "merge" tag first. But of course, I might be wrong :) Tell me what you think! 199.111.230.195 20:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

Good point

Your now semi-hidden Wikipedia cult is just great for different reasons. Unfortunately it prevented me from pulling this card at Talk:List of purported cults, as a re-make wouldn't be that funny. My other two evidence URLs would have been [6] and [7]. --Pjacobi 23:21, 8 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmmm

I'll wait a bit, maybe things will cool down, if they don't I'll unprotect it, but will be watching it closely to see if things get out of hand again. For now that's the best anyone can do. Happy editing!

Johann Wolfgang 23:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Sant Mat

i recommend to read this [8], it is about the history of Sant Mat and sheds some light on the guru/god issue which is in it's definition not as common in India as purported by Cultists and supporters but reflects the "Guru is really God in person" behaviour as portrayed by ex-followers of Rawat Thomas h 13:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Truce

Peace is not something you wish for; It's something you make, Something you do, Something you are, And something you give away.

The holiday season is coming, let's get off each others back until after the New Year, shall we? ≈ jossi fresco ≈ t • @ 16:54, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Happy New Year

For last year's words belong to last year's language

And next year's words await another voice.

And to make an end is to make a beginning.

T.S. Eliot, "Little Gidding"

Happy New Year! ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:24, 31 December 2005 (UTC)

Another POV fork

You know, that the "outsourced" criticism articles on "cults" drive me mad. Whereas I've failed on other subjects, as the sheer amount of stuff strengthened the "splitters", I've trageted a new one: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Local Church controversy.

Care to comment? Do have any reputable sources for criticism?

Pjacobi 15:43, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Sathya Sai Baba

Wat mij betreft geen probleem. Opruimen was routine (alles ouder dan een maand krijgt sowieso niet heel veel aandacht op RFC). Radiant_>|< 22:35, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

• Sorry, I don't have time for a lengthy analysis on a subject that I know little about. If RFC doesn't give additional opinions, try WP:3O or WP:RFM. Radiant_>|< 23:09, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Your question

cp from User talk:Lulu of the Lotus-Eaters Andries needs to slow down with his advocacy against gurus andl leaders new religious movements. He finds a certain joy in grouping gurus and leaders of new religious movements with Hitler to the hope to assert the fallacy of guilt by association. This is at the core of the discussion at Charismatic authority, no more, no less. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:37, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not exactly the only one who recognizes the similarity from personal exerience. So does Eileen Barker (in an interview) "I remember when I first saw Reverend Sun Myung Moon. I was watching with some other people while he was talking and gesticulating in Korean, and it really reminded me more of Hitler than of anyone else." [9]But do not worry. I have no intention to write that in the article though because it is just an interview, not an article in a scholarly magazine. Andries 16:48, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Yes we all know how you feel. But that is not what Wikipedia is for. Read WP:NOT. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 16:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Can you please specify where I broke that policy? Andries 17:03, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

---

You may have not "broken the policy" but you are surely using Wikipedia to advocate your point of view, as stated by you several times including recently on your own user page. The no advocacy policy of Wikipeddia is not designed to be navigated around to "avoid breaking it". WP:NOT is to be embraced as a concept, together with WP:NPOV, WP:V, WP:NOR. There is a big difference between these two. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:34, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

opposing an uncritical attitude towards cults and new religious movements within policies is not advocacy. Andries 20:39, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that it is time that the de facto project Wikipedia:WikiProject_Cults_and_new_religious_movements is formally declared. At least we will then have a centralized place of discussion, and debate, especially about sources and Wikipedia:POV forks, list of cults etc. Regardless of the impression of what you have of me, it was and is never my intention to depict cults, gurus, and new religious movements more sinister that they really are or more sinister than supported by the sources. Andries 20:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I have stated the obvious as depicted by your actions. It is all very transparent. As for the Wikipedia project you mention, I am not interested. Thanks anyway. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 22:31, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Opus Dei: Validity of testimonies of former members

Dear Andries, I am trying to synthesize the different versions proposed so far regarding this topic:

• Your first one: Adherents of Opus Dei point in response to the accusations to the fact that several sociologists and religious scholars, like Wilson, treat the testimonies of critical former members with skepticism. In [10]

• Irmgard's (which you ok'd): Sociologist Bryan R Wilson discredits reports of former members as [apostates testimony], a view which is disputed among scholars and sociologists. See Apostates#Opinions about the reliability of apostates' testimony and their motivations.

• Thomas S. Major's development of Irmgard's: Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, a scientist admired by scholars world-wide but also opposed by some others, studied the phenomenon of a type of adult former members who "shows himself to have been first a victim" then "a redeemed crusader" and "whose personal history predisposes him to bias." Wilson states: "the suspicion must arise that he acts from a personal motivation to vindicate himself and to regain his self-esteem." These, he says, "learn to rehearse an atrocity story,"

• Your latest version: Some prominent sociologists advocate in general skepticism towards the testimonies of critical former members of controversial religious movements while other sociologists disagree. See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements

My latest proposal: While the topic of the validity of testimonies of former members of religious organizations is controversial, some prominent sociologists like Reader Emeritus of Sociology of the University of Oxford, Bryan R. Wilson, puts in doubt the testimonies of a type of critical former members. Wilson goes so far as to say, for example, that some of these adult members who are "prone to bias" sometimes "learn to rehearse an atrocity story." See Controversy about the validity of the testimonies of critical members of religious movements

My proposal tries to put together proposals. I think that Thomas' attempt to provide a quote is ok given the NPOV policy:

Disagreements over whether something is approached the Neutral Point Of View (NPOV) way can usually be avoided through the practice of good research. Facts (as defined in the previous paragraph) are not Points Of View (POV, here used in the meaning of "opposite of NPOV") in and of themselves. A good way to help building a neutral point of view is to find a reputable source for the piece of information you want to add to wikipedia, and then cite that source. This is an easy way to characterize a side of a debate without excluding that the debate has other sides. The trick is to find the best and most reputable sources you can. [11]

Although I do agree that the quote has to put in proper context and nuance as you said in [12]: that Wilson although prominent and a very "reputable source" is quite extreme. Thus, my rendering: "he goes so far as to say."

I placed "put in doubt" rather than "generally advocates skepticism" because he specifies the type. He does not advocate skepticism for all apostates. There is more nuance in his statements, I think.

What do you think? Lafem 05:35, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Non-english sources

There is already an official Wikipedia policy about sources: WP:Verifiability: I quote:

Because this is the English Wikipedia, English-language sources should be given whenever possible, and should always be used in preference to foreign-language sources. For example, do not use a foreign-language newspaper as a source unless there is no equivalent article in an English-language newspaper.

In cases where the original source material is not in English, and there is no English-language equivalent, there is a tension between accessibility and verifiability. Readers may not be able to read source materials in other languages, and therefore require translations into English so that they can read them. Editors need this too, so they can check that the source has been used correctly.

However, translations are subject to error, whether performed by a Wikipedia editor or a professional, published translator. Readers have to be able to verify for themselves what the original material actually said, that it was published by a credible source, and that it was translated correctly.

Therefore, when the original material is in a language other than English:

• Where sources are directly quoted, published translations are preferred over editors performing their own translations directly.
• Where editors use their own English translation of a non-English source as a quote in an article, they should include next to it the original-language quotation, so that readers can check what the original source said and the accuracy of the translation.
• The original source in the original language should be cited, so that readers and editors can evaluate the reliability and credibility of the original source, can determine whether the original source was peer reviewed, and can verify that the article content is supported by the source material.

So, non-English sources are OK, within these parameters. If you want to change that official policy, the best way to do this is at Wikipedia_talk:Verifiability ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 03:37, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with this policy that was only recently changed in this respect by Slim Virgin. Andries 09:46, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Policies are approved by the community at large, not by a sinmgle editor. If you disagree with any policy, you will have to go back to the community to raise your ooposition, not to start an advocacy group to push a POV. ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 15:30, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Hitler and charisma

The Charismatic authority page you linked to Adolf Hitler has text missing - you can see the gap where footnote 2 is marked. Perhaps you could fill the gap.--shtove 11:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

Rodney Stark

I had never heard of him until I read the TNR article; and it does not encourage me to want to know more. But it belongs in any article. A URL for it can probably be found through http:\\www.thenewrepublic.com

Good luck, Septentrionalis 03:49, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Arnoud Engelfriet

Thank you for your note on my talk page. --Edcolins 14:10, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Witness accounts

If you have a problem with a witness account such as Mr. Singh's as it pertains to WP:V, please let me know so that we can then proceed to remove all personal accounts from the Criticism of Prem Rawat article. Ah, and when we are at it, let's proceed and delete all the witness accounts against your guru posted on anti-SSB websites such as the one you are a webmaster of, shall we? ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 20:03, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Mediation?

Hi, I am responding to a Wikipedia:Requests for mediation#Sathya_Sai_Baba initiated by Jossi (talk · contribs). The parties to the mediation would be SSS108 (talk · contribs), Thaumaturgic (talk · contribs) and Andries (talk · contribs). This would be an entirely voluntary mediation. I have no official status with Wikipedia, and I am not an admin. My only aim would be to assist in dispute resolution. Please let me know if you are willing to have me play the role of mediator by commenting at User:BostonMA/Mediation. --BostonMA 01:34, 2 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for accepting me as a mediator on a trial basis. The other two editors have already raised a number of issues about which they have concerns. It would be helpful if you started a section on the mediation page which expresses some of the things you hope might come out of mediation. If you don't feel inclined to express your hopes for mediation, that is OK too, but in that case please let me know that it is OK to proceed without a statement from you. Thanks again. --BostonMA 15:08, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I added the following comment to mediation page. I am repeating it here, because I did some major reorganization, and I don't want this to get overlooked in the shuffle.

I am more interested in the answers to the two questions than I am in arguments that might be raised to support the particular numbers chosen. I am at fault for conveying the impression that I am more interested in the arguments which support those numbers than is the case at the moment. I think the arguments are important, but I really want to see the numbers soon, even if they are high and low limits that you have chosen merely because your gut says they are OK.

--BostonMA 23:22, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Because the main mediation page has grown so large, I have added a new page BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source. Please use the page only for discussion of using Nagel as a source. I have given some of my opinions on the page already. Please give yours. It is my hope that editting work on the main article can proceed at the same time that specific issues, such as using Alexandra Nagel as a source are discussed. --BostonMA 03:34, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Jossi is not officially a party to the mediation. However, Jossi appears to have strong concerns about the content of the SSB articles. It would seem formalistic to me not to include Jossi. Do you object? --BostonMA 03:48, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, Thank you for moving the Nagel page. I hadn't noticed that I created it in the wrong space. --BostonMA 15:39, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have added a new page User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Use of Websites. Please continue to discuss matters on User:BostonMA/Mediation/Sathya Sai Baba/Nagel as source as well. --BostonMA 03:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I have added two new pages. The first page is a Mediator Reminder Page. Occassionally, I will lose track of things to which I ought to respond, or upon which I ought to take action. This page is the place to give me reminders of such things. Please do not use this page for discussion. As I respond to the item of which you are reminding me, I will delete the reminder. So don't place anything on the page that you want kept. The second page is a Reminder Page for the Editors. Please put this page on your watchlist, and review it from time to time. Just as I do, editors may also lose track of items. Questions may be asked which are forgotten or the answers to these questions may not be clear to readers such as myself. I will place such questions on this page. Please do not edit this page at all. Just look at it. If I have included an item that you believe has already been addressed, just let me know on the Mediator Reminder Page. I've added larger links below for your convenience --BostonMA 03:09, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Dutch language Talk

I believe a message directed at you is waiting for an answer.

19:45, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

Welcome

Thanks for the welcome and your work on Jim Jones! Ecto 23:28, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Prem Rawat

Hi Andries, I could have sworn I replied to your message — I remember exactly what I said — but either I forgot to click "send" or the server ate it. (I wonder which is more likely.) Thanks, anyway! I was very pleased to see your informative edit to the Lead of Prem Rawat, about the groups that the criticism came from. "Oh, look, great Lead now", I thought. "Everybody's gonna be happy." Ha ha, yeah. I guess I forgot to count those archives. Bishonen | talk 01:56, 15 February 2006 (UTC).

The Blondin Award

Charles Blondin

For your tireless efforts to introduce more balance in Prem Rawat, I hereby present you with the prestigious Blondin Tightrope Award, represented by this image of the amazing Charles Blondin carrying Jimbo Wales safely across the Niagara Falls. Bishonen | talk 21:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC).