Talk:"I AM" Activity

Copyvio

This is a copyvio from [1] despite that the contributor cited the metareligion site, there's no evidence that the text has been released under a suitable license. Matt 23:49, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

The copyvio have been deleted and replaced by a rewrite. --Sherool (talk) 03:29, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

Merging

I think that the group isn't notable enough to have 2 pages. One would be sufficient to achieve encyclopedic breadth of the subject and it will counter having 2 mid quality articles. Lincher 17:32, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Plagarism

The charge of plagarism which I tagged {{fact}} needs a specific citation at that point. Thanks. Wjhonson 05:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was PAGE MOVED per discussion below. -GTBacchus^(talk) 19:25, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

---

"I Am" Religious Activity of the Saint Germain Foundation → "I AM" Activity — The title is too long, their website only calls it the "I AM Activity" [2], that's it. AW 15:22, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Add  # '''Support'''  or  # '''Oppose'''  on a new line in the appropriate section followed by a brief explanation, then sign your opinion using ~~~~.

Survey - Support votes

Yes, I've also encountered in, in my general background reading, as only being called the "I Am" movement.Wjhonson 06:15, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Survey - Oppose votes

• The full name is: The "I AM" Religious Activity of The Saint Germain Foundation. Aburesz 03:49, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
• I don't think that the name is too long. — goethean ॐ 15:30, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see, their website never says The "I AM" Religious Activity of The Saint Germain Foundation. Please show me where it says that. --AW 18:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Here? — goethean ॐ 18:26, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

That doesn't have "religious" in it. --AW 19:06, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Discussion

Add any additional comments:

"'I Am' movement" has NEVER been used by that organization from 1934 (the year of its first publication of Unveiled Mysteries) down through to the present time. Aburesz 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Can you back that statement up with a citation? Wjhonson 07:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

It is impossible to prove someone has NOT said or written something - since it does not exist. My statement above is based on extensive study of new religious movements, such as The "I AM" Activity, since 1968. Aburesz 01:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• That misses the point. You made a claim and haven't produced any citation to back it up. I'm not asking for a claim of the negative statement, but rather a claim of the positive statement. So far you don't have any citation at all. Wjhonson 17:43, 18 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Please explain how you prove that a person or organization has NOT said or written something. I have already relayed to you that I have studied the "I AM" Activity since 1968, and I know what I am writing about. But there is no known way that I can see of how to provide a "citation" about something that was never written or stated or done by a particular organization or person. Please explain how this can be done, so that I can try to fulfill your request. Aburesz 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:Naming_conventions also says we should use common names. I don't think people say that entire thing commonly, they probably just say "I AM" Activity. --AW 19:11, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

• A basic Google test shows "I AM" Religious Activity to be slightly more common on the Internet than "I AM" Activity. The current title is less common than either, but still in use, being the name of a booklet.

  Of the four external internet sources cited in the article, one doesn't mention the activity, another simply calls it the "I AM" Activity, a third calls it the "I AM" Religious Activity and the "I AM" Activity interchangably, and the fourth, Saint Germain's official site, only uses "I AM" Activity in context, but shows that both short versions are registered trademarks.

  The naming conventions say we should name the article in a way that's recognizable to English speakers, unambiguous, and easy to link to. I think all three titles are unambiguous and recognizable, and the long (current) title seems the least natural to link to. The current title could conceivably be ambiguous, as it could refer to the activity itself, or to the booklet. -GTBacchus^(talk) 01:48, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Based on that, the fact that three links use "I AM" Activity the most, and based on the naming convention, I think it's clear that "I AM" Activity is the best name for this page --AW 19:12, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I now tend to agree that "I AM" Activity is the best name for this page, even though the Saint Germain Foundation uses as the full name: "I AM" Religious Activity of the Saint Germain Foundation. Aburesz 21:28, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Intro is confusing

Can someone explain "Its beliefs center around Ascended Masters and the Individualized "I AM" Presence of each person." for a layperson. I think both of those terms should be explained - ascended masters and individualized i am presence --AW 18:25, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

"Ascended Masters" is defined on the Ascended Master page, and "Individualized I AM Presence" is defined in this article under the "Beliefs" section. Aburesz 21:39, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I still think a brief thing would be useful in the beginning. It doesn't mean much to a random person on this page. Something like "Its beliefs center around Ascended Masters, who are... and the Individualized "I AM" Presence, which is a type of... of each person. --AW 17:05, 22 January 2007 (UTC)