Talk:Raëlian Church

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

The article has been moved to Raëlism[edit]

The awards have been moved to Talk:Raëlism.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 19:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

"atheist"?[edit]

Since when is this cult "atheist"?—Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.142.24.242 (talkcontribs) _______

Answer to the person's question:

Raelian Sites:

http://www.thereisnogod.info

http://www.thereisnogod.info/English/Giordano.php

http://www.sowoman.org/

http://www.clitoraid.org/

eric_bolou's photos

Because they believe that the universe wasn't created but has always existed, Raelians are not deist.

Kmarinas86 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

http://www.thereisnogod.info/English/Clitocracy.php

Kmarinas86 01:11, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion of Edits[edit]

NPOV[edit]

Somebody else put this up saying that there isn't a neutral point of view

"The neutral point of view

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly, but not asserted. All significant published points of view are presented, not just the most popular one. It should not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject.

Debates are described, represented, and characterized, but not engaged in. Background is provided on who believes what and why, and which view is more popular. Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of each viewpoint, but studiously refrain from stating which is better. One can think of unbiased writing as the cold, fair, analytical description of all relevant sides of a debate. When bias towards one particular point of view can be detected the article needs to be fixed."

Bias checklist[edit]

Types of bias include:

  • Class bias, including bias favoring one social class and bias ignoring social or class divisions.

No. Raelians come from many diverse social classes.

  • Commercial bias, including advertising, coverage of political campaigns in such a way as to favor corporate interests, and the reporting of issues to favor the interests of the owners of the news media.

No. The Raelian Movement is not a corporate entity.

  • Ethnic or racial bias, including racism, nationalism and regionalism.

No. Raelians are against racism, nationalism, and regionalism.

  • Gender bias, including sexism and heteronormativity.

No. Raelians are both male and female are against sexism.

  • Geographical bias which may for example describe a dispute as it is conducted in one country without knowing that the dispute is framed differently elsewhere.

No. Raelians are from around the world, so it makes no sense characterize them as coming from one geographic region.

  • Nationalistic bias: favoring the interests or views of a particular nation.

No. Raelians are against nationalism.

  • Political bias, including bias in favor of or against a particular political party, policy or candidate.

No. No political parties are metioned in the article.

  • Religious bias, including bias in which one religious viewpoint is given preference over others.

No. No religions are compared in this article.

  • Sensationalism, which is bias in favor of the exceptional over the ordinary. This includes the practice whereby exceptional news may be overemphasized, distorted or fabricated to boost commercial ratings.

Look at Wikipedia is not paper:

Wikipedia is not a soapbox or a vehicle for propaganda and advertising. Therefore, Wikipedia articles are not:

  1. Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article. Wikipedia was not made for opinion, it was made for fact.
  2. Self-promotion. You are free to write about yourself or projects you have a strong personal involvement in. However, do remember that the standards for encyclopedic articles apply to such pages just like any other, including the requirement to maintain a neutral point of view, which is difficult when writing about yourself. Creating overly abundant links and references to autobiographical articles is unacceptable. See Wikipedia:Autobiography, Wikipedia:Vanity, and Wikipedia:Notability.
  3. Advertising. Articles about companies and products are acceptable if they are written in an objective and unbiased style. Furthermore, all article topics must be third-party verifiable, so articles about very small "garage" or local companies are not likely to be acceptable. External links to commercial organizations are acceptable if they can serve to identify major corporations associated with a topic (see finishing school for an example). Please note Wikipedia does not endorse any businesses and it does not set up affiliate programs. See also WP:CORP for guidelines on corporate notability.

Yes. So the solution is to implement other views into the article, and to remove unnecessary adjectives and sugary statements. But some of the statements in the article are factual. Getting on to it. I will go first.Kmarinas86 05:11, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

I have done what so far helps to neutralize the article. Perhaps its not bitter enough for your tastes. As you cut out the parts you don't like, paste them here for reference.Kmarinas86 05:19, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Problem 1
Problem 2
Problem 3

If there is no response from anyone else by 12 August 2006, I will tentatively remove the neutrality tag.Kmarinas86 23:47, 5 August 2006 (UTC)

Nah. I'm not going to wait that long ;) Kmarinas86 19:07, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

FYI, I removed the following phrases and statements

Their contributions are often marked by the femininity of the presentation, and as a result of such, they often attract positive attention from onlookers.

which are always positive.

In the US, in Raëlian Femininity events do not attract negative influences, but instead positive ones. The women have noticed that people around them treat them with respect, despite the fact that they stand out very much, and this reflects to what extent they are achieving their function within the movement.

Like most lifeguarding of beaches, the purpose of this function of the Raelian Movement is to make life richer for others, not to ends one's own precious life.

Kmarinas86 19:57, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Now in addition, I removed the following statements either for NPOV or eliminating redundancy:

Women who choose to become Raelian Angels work to develop their own feminine qualities in order to teach others to grow in the same way.

These women put their interior and exterior beauty at the service of their Creators, their Prophet, and also of Humanity, watching over their comfort at every point.

Until the arrival of the Elohim, only Raël is present; consequently, they must see to his well-being.

Kmarinas86 20:06, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

Another one (for redundancy)

Raelians often use the color pink to express their femininity and sexuality.

Kmarinas86 20:08, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

"said to be"[edit]

Comments, complaints, and suggestions of the "said to be" phrase as used in the article go here.

NPOV tag[edit]

I said in the history section:

 If you add the NPOV back state give at least 2 paragraphs explaining why in the dicussion section BEFORE you add the tag. I have changed the grammar. I added more critical sections. I need reasons!

So I haven't type two paragraphs in the history section. But I have put many new paragraphs in the article. Maybe we can call those "my reasons"? Thanks.Kmarinas86 03:28, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

The reason why I think it is important for you to give your reasons is so that I know exactly what's necessary in your opinion for NPOV. Otherwise, I'll guess. On that basis, that is why I have removed the tag temporarily. But please, don't let me guess anymore, and just give me your reason, if you don't, I'll keep removing the tag after I think improvements have reached a critical point.Kmarinas86 03:48, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

I didn't forget the reasons you, ________, gave earlier. The article no longer sounds like an advertisment, and for the past few days, the article sounds like it was narrated by a non-Raelian - this is suggested by the skeptical sounding phrase "is said to be" which make it easier to take the "Raelian facts" with a grain of salt.Kmarinas86 03:58, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Heared stuff[edit]

i heared that rael the french cult leader asking always his follower to donate money to him 1% of the income of his follower " the vectim" to his direct bank account

This information is riduclous firstly, by saying "asking always ____" when is physically impossible to keeping asking the same thing all the time, secondly, asking is simply asking, not a obligation, perhaps not even a recommendation for certain individuals in particular...Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

and another 6% of the follower income to his movement account and he still have access to this account too.

 this mean he is asking every one follow him for 7% of thier income as donation. we never saw this money used to help humanity it is only to support his sexual and vip life.
One knows that just because they heard so? It is stated as such, just as I can "state" or even "admit" that Bush is a former socialist from Argentina even when many people will know that's not true. The thing with this is that for some of the uninitiated, the first thing they think is the thing they believe and whatever else they see that counters that idea they will think of as wrong.Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

he also asking the young female to sign a contract , please aske any one of the cult leader follower about it ????

on the followingrael angel order he asking his follower to give him sex without limitation oral anal or whatever , please any raelian discuss this order with us here other wise please publish it on the from page of the wiki

I'll take the bet. ;). For the people just seeing this, here's the link http://www.google.com/search?q=%22If+almost+all+applicants+will+be+accepted+as+Angels%22 at first glance, the phrases "RAEL's Angel Order" and "Dear Angels" already sounds ridiclous. Rael wouldn't call it "RAEL's Angel Order", it's called the "Order of Angels", duh. Also see: http://www.google.com/search?q=%22gold+ribbon%22+rael+OR+raelian (I found no verification of any connection between the "Order of Angels" and the phrase "gold ribbon".) May I point out this, the third option, "choosen", is not even a real word. It does not even make sense as a listed choice!Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
                       RAEL’s Angels Order

Dear Angels,

From May 57 a.H., application will offer three choices :

May 57 a.H. is May 2003.Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Angel
  • Golden Ribbon
  • Choosen

If almost all applicants will be accepted as Angels, Golden Ribbons will be severely selected.

Being a Golden Ribbon means being ready to be at ELOHIMs and Prophets service without any restrictions, including sexually. So those who are actually Golden Ribbons and are not willing to comply with these requirements, by choice or because they are engaged in an exclusivity relationship with their sexual partners, will have to abandon their Golden Ribbon and be simple Angels. All Angels have to fill this new application form to choose.

It is unthinkable that when our Beloved Creators arrive, some Golden Ribbon welcome them very closely but refuse to have close relationship with them. The privilege to be in close contact with them implicate to be open to everything without any restrictions and without the disrespectful attitude of refusing intimate contacts.

Per the philosophy of Raelians, It is NOT disrespectful to refuse intimate contacts. "You're welcome to come and you're welcome to go" as Rael says. Besides, in the case of the very effeminate Elohim, what exactly are they going to do to such people of they don't comply? There are no jails (and obviously no death penalty) on the Elohim planet according to Rael.Kmarinas86 02:12, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

The privilege to be close to them should be reserved to those who are deeply in love with them, of a religious love, ready to give them everything without any restriction, including their own life if it was necessary to protect them.

It is much better to be a "simple " angel than to be one day in a position to refuse anything to the ELOHIM or the Prophets. Those choosing to be simple Angels are also very important even if they don't wish to give everything, they have the beautiful mission to support, help organize and take care of the Golden Ribbons. They should not at all feel any shame or frustration of not accepting to give everything. It is much better to never put yourself in the terrible situation of being forced one day to do something you don't like or insulting our Creators and Prophets by refusing close contacts with them.

Whatever. Raelians marriages are not eternal contracts, they can divorce of course (and they do this without the chain of guilt, contempt, etc.).Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It is very important to really ask yourself what you want to give. If the answer is "all without any limitation", then you can make application to be Golden Ribbon. And devote yourself totally to love the ELOHIM and the Prophets. Even being ready to give your own life.

Of course the Choosen Ones, being or not Golden Ribbons, fall automatically in this category. So, if you are a Chosen One, you don't have to fill this new application to choose again between normal Angels and Golden Ribbons as you already are ready to give everything for the Elohim and the Prophets without any limitation.

Very soon new training seminars will take place for those accepted as Golden Ribbons to prepare them for the most important day of our History. This will take place before the next seminars in order for those who select it to be ready to take care of our Beloved Prophet if they wish to.

Utterly ridiculous. In reality, there is no such "important day of history" as the one implied by this statement. This text was probably written by some whatever who believes that such a day would be the day that Raelians commit suicide - that ain't happening however. That's ridiculous!Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

One more time, it's up to you to choose to have the privilege to be in close contact with the Last Prophet and to serve him by sending your application to become a Golden Ribbon. Remember that only Golden Ribbons will be able to take care of our beloved Prophet which will be the best training possible for the day of our dreams, the arrival of our Creators, remembering that they watch us through his eyes ! Being close to Him is being close to Them ! If you prefer to be simple Angels, that's also great as you will have a very important place to make our Angel's Order being efficient in promoting femininity and supporting Golden Ribbons. So, think about it and select without any pressure what you think is better for you ! Please send it back to us as soon as possible as a special seminar for Golden Ribbon will be organize soon ... The summer seminars are coming soon and we must be ready

It is easy to imagine how some of the article may have been edited into what would otherwise be a legitmate letter. In fact, what one could do is take what is above and add a new message at the beginning of the letter saying many slanderous and ridiculous claims about Metro bus services, then send it somewhere else on the internet claiming it to be the original - and have some few individuals believe that it is so. There is absoutely no possible way for proof of the authencity of this text to be available on the web. Even if it existed on some site such as this, it is easy to concieve that it was not the original.Kmarinas86 01:41, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
In the previous comments I have made, I was responding to the possible inneundo of the statements, not the actual intended meaning of those statements, whatever that might be.Kmarinas86 10:46, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

i have some questions?

1- does rael and his guides send emailes and aske his follower verbally for donation of 7 % of thier annual income 1% to rael direct bank account and 6 % to his movement account and of course he has direct access to both it is true or not ????

NoKmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

he aske his 60 thouthand follower for annual donation of 7 % of their income ????

No, not 60 "thoutand" not even 60 thousand, try again =PKmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

2- does the Golden Ribbon angels have to give sex to rael without limitation " and cannot say no " according to the order at the end of this page ?? is it true or not

No, there no such thing as "golden ribbon". It's made up.Kmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

3- does donation of money to rael will help the humanity??

It helps a human =PKmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

4- did rael donated money to any one in need sick persons poor african or war or discrimination vectems ????

Perhaps.Kmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

5-is it true that rael failed in the school and left because he was not interested in science " he stated that in his book " final message" ? he tried to become entertainer and failed and he got the idea of cloning from movie about the cloning in 1973 written by lamar card , lamar wrote about cloning before rael recieved his message after he failed to become entertainer or car racer.

Which school? They taught science? He did? oF course he did.. wtf.. LAMeR? Correlation is a false cause. Quitting entertainment is not the same as failing, and he is still a singer and entertainer in any case http://www.messagefromthedesigners.org/download.php/e107_plugins/raelmeetfriends/e107_plugins/faq/e107_plugins/vstore/e107_plugins/raelscience_menu/e107_plugins/links_page/rael_content/e107_plugins/raeladdresses_menu/e107_plugins/raelmeetfriends/e107_plugins/raelseminar_menu/e107_plugins/raeltv_menu/e107_plugins/raelscience_menu/rael_content/rael_summary.php?list.32, stop thinking in 1970s man that is so lame ya LAMAR =P. And wtf, he was an actual racecar driver who won some medals, how can one fail to be a racecar driver by being one - explain that? You're other statements appear to have "as much" universal support as your last one. "Regards"Kmarinas86 08:33, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Automated Peer Review[edit]

(cur) (last) 18:24, 15 November 2006 Sfacets (Talk | contribs) (Peacock terms)[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • The lead of this article may be too long, or may contain too many paragraphs. Please follow guidelines at WP:LEAD; be aware that the lead should adequately summarize the article.
  • The lead is for summarizing the rest of the article, and should not introduce new topics not discussed in the rest of the article, as per WP:LEAD. Please ensure that the lead adequately summarizes the article.
  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), months and days of the week generally should not be linked. Years, decades, and centuries can be linked if they provide context for the article.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • As per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (dates), dates shouldn't use th; for example, instead of using January 30th was a great day, use January 30 was a great day.
  • As per WP:MOS, please do not link words in headings.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • There are a few occurrences of weasel words in this article- please observe WP:AWT. Certain phrases should specify exactly who supports, considers, believes, etc., such a view.
    • many people have
    • might be weasel words, and should be provided with proper citations (if they already do, or are not weasel terms, please strike this comment).
  • Watch for redundancies that make the article too wordy instead of being crisp and concise. (You may wish to try Tony1's redundancy exercises.)
    • Vague terms of size often are unnecessary and redundant - “some”, “a variety/number/majority of”, “several”, “a few”, “many”, “any”, and “all”. For example, “All pigs are pink, so we thought of a number of ways to turn them green.”
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 12:12, 20 November 2006 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

  • Consider adding more links to the article; per Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links) and Wikipedia:Build the web, create links to relevant articles.
  • When writing standard abbreviations, the abbreviations should not have a 's' to demark plurality (change kms to km and lbs to lb).
  • Per Wikipedia:Context and Wikipedia:Build the web, years with full dates should be linked; for example, link January 15, 2006, but do not link January 2006.
  • Generally, trivia sections are looked down upon; please either remove the trivia section or incorporate any important facts into the rest of the article.
  • As done in WP:FOOTNOTE, footnotes usually are located right after a punctuation mark (as recommended by the CMS, but not mandatory), such that there is no space inbetween. For example, the sun is larger than the moon [2]. is usually written as the sun is larger than the moon.[2]
  • Please ensure that the article has gone through a thorough copyediting so that it exemplifies some of Wikipedia's best work. See also User:Tony1/How to satisfy Criterion 1a.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 17:15, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 22:17, 25 November 2006 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 03:19, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

(cur) (last) 14:08, 4 January 2007 Kmarinas86 (Talk | contribs)[edit]

The following suggestions were generated by a semi-automatic javascript program, and might not be applicable for the article in question.

You may wish to browse through User:AndyZ/Suggestions for further ideas. Thanks, Kmarinas86 19:09, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


Sources[edit]

Why are so many sources provided under the 'demographics' section (and elsewhere)? I invite the user who added them (Kmarinas86?) to chose only those which are relevant, since the reference section is really geting out of hand, and is affecting navigation. Sfacets 19:39, 10 January 2007 (UTC)


Kmarinas86, if you want to insert that the organization is regarded as a cult, then you have to provide reliable sources - a Google search by which you show how many results show up for the term "cult" is merely your interpretation of those numbers, and has no basis in fact. Please provide specific references or remove the claim. Sfacets 05:13, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


A cult is a cohesive group of people (sometimes a relatively small and recently founded religious movement, sometimes numbering in the hundreds of thousands) devoted to beliefs or practices...Its separate status may come about...due to its novel belief system. Text cut and pasted from Wikipedia. I think that describes the Raelian Church fairly well, right? Kagechikara

A) Wikipedia is not a reliable source. B) Deciding whether a groups meets a certain criteria is usually original research. It's better to simply report what others have decided. -Will Beback · · 06:55, 26 January 2007 (UTC)
Sure, it describes the Raelians. It also describes Presbyterians, Roman Catholics, Sunnis... I think it's more accurate to say that while it describes cults, it also describes religions that are not cults.69.64.3.68 11:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Failed "good article" nomination[edit]

This article failed good article nomination. This is how the article, as of February 17, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: Fail There are numerous stubby paragraphs of only a sentence or two, and a great overuse of blockquotes. The organization of the article is also generally poor.
Not many stubby paragraphs anymore, although there seems to be some psuedo-paragraphs with more than one topic sentence each of which is only devoted one sentence (such as the one that mentions 8% of Raëlians being former Mormons). Also, I'm not sure how to break the huge paragraph concerning the membership statistics in a way that is natural. Despite that, in that paragraph, I at least try to make the facts speak for themselves, but still, I am unsure as to its weight in the article, since they are much larger than sections in activities.Kmarinas86 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
Update: I have been able to reorganize the article. However, there are still three paragraphs with only one sentence:

Some have stated that Raëlians have orgies:

Raël did not appreciate the ad hominems and decided a year later to start an organization to deal with this:

More recently, a similar purpose is being served at at the FAQ at the main Raëlian website, where Raëlians deny that they organize orgies:

This constitutes 3 out of 20 paragraphs which are not in blockquotes.Kmarinas86 20:07, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
2. Factually accurate?: Fail The number of citations is impressive, but I would like to see more of them from sources outside of the church, in accordance with WP:RS.
Most of the citations are now third-party sources.Kmarinas86 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
3. Broad in coverage?: Fail. While the article seems decently broad, it has some sections that could be consided non-notable trivia. Are the church's links with Hugh Hefner and Betty Dodson really worthy of so much attention?
I'm not sure if the statistics concerning the membership numbers are non-notable trivia, but they are often quoted in third party sources. I believe that they would at least pass Wikipedia:Attribution.Kmarinas86 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
4. Neutral point of view?: Fail The tone of the article is very pro-church, and the criticisms section is very diluted. Definitely needs more work to become NPOV.
Now, with the removal of the Betty Dobson and Hugh Hefner sections as well as the insertion of several controversies I think there has been much done to bring this closer if not at a NPOV position.Kmarinas86 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
5. Article stability? Pass No problems here.
Aye.Kmarinas86 04:25, 13 April 2007 (UTC)
6. Images?: Questionable I'm not an expert on this aspect (apologies!) but some of the fair use rationales seem a bit dubious.

When these issues are addressed, the article can be resubmitted for consideration. Thanks for your work so far. --MLilburne 09:15, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Flawed computation?[edit]

Currently there are about 170 guides,[20] meaning that the mandated component of the effective salary of the Level 6 guide is less than 170% times the average salary of Raelian guides in the world, or less than the salary of an entry-level accountant in the United States.

Not sure how one came up with this 170%... Was it by multiplying the 1% each member pays to level-6 guides, times the number of level-6 guides (170)? If so, the computation is obviously deeply flawed. Why doesn't it take the number of members (65,000) into account?

65,000 * 1% / 170 = 382%

Gb1291 05:27, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

That's how it was done. No, not deeply flawed, just inaccurate ;). It says mandated, the rest is not. But I'm sure that his salary may be a bit more than that. I've been to their meetings, and I've paid them not a penny. As the inner circle says, the contribution is voluntary.
I understand your concern. There is probably no single reliable source when it comes to these, unless, for example, some journalist with high ranking has entered the movement and actually became a member and reported that verily that there is no charge for being a member. I believe that given the time that has passed, this has already been done, but I have not found that respective article. Well then, let's put it off for later...Kmarinas86 15:27, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Susan J. Palmer[edit]

although, all of the quotes are from the same person. hasn't anyone besides Susan J. Palmer written about them? It seems it would make a more well-balanced article. --67.164.14.118 05:54, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, infact, such material already exists on the page, although not in direct quotation:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlian_Church#_ref-Ra.C3.ABl_et_le_mouvement_ra.C3.A9lien_0 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ra%C3%ABlian_Church#_ref-The_Raelian_Movement_0 etc.

In fact the majority of the third party sources are not from Susan J. Palmer. Many people have written about them and it shows in the footnotes. I'll see if I can convert some of the footnotes into direct quotations, but I don't see the need for more than three blockquotes.Kmarinas86 17:35, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

Failed GA Review[edit]

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:
  • Well written:The reality is the prose is clunky, like it was translated from some other language using a bot and dropped here. (Examples:"According to the History of Raëlism, in December 13, 1973 began the upbringing for what would become the Raëlian Church," and "Starting from that year, the International Raelian Movement was spreading the word about the contents in the first two Raëlian books concerning what they believe to be a restoration of meaning of biblical text, an update on the future of the Christian Church,[1] and the philosophy and directives Yahweh Elohim taught Rael in second set of CE-5 encounters," and "Each day begins with a meditation mainly at around 9:00 A.m. local time," and "Raelians have typed multiple tort claims concerning extortion, breach of contract, replevin, conversion, gross negligence, false light invasion of privacy, defamation, and tortuous interference in business affairs.") A major rewrite is required here.
First rewrite attempt complete. Covered?Kmarinas86 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Sources: The sources are still largely from the church itself or dubious. (Example: "In March 27, 2000, Motorsport.com stated that Raelian membership was 50,000.")
Got rid of some of these. Covered?Kmarinas86 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
  • Neutral: It continues to maintain a tone of approval for the church (POV) and downplays criticism of the church. Yes, it does use the word "cult," but it reads like a defense of the church, not an encyclopedia. Also, the pedantic description of some aspects is not appropriate. (Examples: "As a rule, first-time seminarists, students, and people under the age of 25 are exempted from paying the basic seminar fee, which is responsible for covering the costs of running the Raëlian seminars. Only people who are returning or are of age are required to cover these costs," and "These Raëlian gatherings have over time taken place in areas such as hotels in Japan, Europe, and Thailand, gardens in Canada, hotels and deserts of Nevada, campgrounds in Oceania, and meeting halls in Africa.")
Got rid of the Raëlian defense about orgies. Got rid of the replevin sentence. Got rid those sentences too. Covered?Kmarinas86 05:52, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

For these reasons, I am confidently failing this article for a second time. You may seek a review of this decision if you disagree. Argos'Dad 04:36, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Third GA Review[edit]

Kmarinas86, You have still not fixed the problems with this article and I am failing it again. Please seek a peer review, or some one who can assist you in making the edits necessary for this to meet the criteria. Take some time to get it right. Argos'Dad 22:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

How does deleting the problematic sentences constitute leaving the problem sentences there? Be more specific. Did I create new problems in the process by deleting information? Which information? Are you doubting that I could have done enough edits in one hour? How does this account for the fact that the lead is no longer as convoluted - ok maybe 10% less convoluted. Anyway, I know I did take some time, at least one hour to focus solely on what you mentioned. I need specifics to go beyond that. I feel that I have edited criticism sections somewhat to address the issue. This had led to a transformation of the criticism section as I added material concerning the views of the Catholic Church. I deleted several sentences of pro-Raëlian Church material. Nevertheless, I will take your advice and send this to review since they may have more time to address the specifics.Kmarinas86 01:25, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
In the GA Review, I did not list every single line and edit that would need to be made to bring this article to the level of a Good Article. I see that you responded to each of the examples I gave and so I am confident you would benefit from a peer review that will give you more specific feedback and advice. Take the time to improve this article and perhaps invite others to provide some other perspectives to balance the POV and the article could be a GA. Cheers! Argos'Dad 01:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for communicating with speed! =DKmarinas86 01:42, 1 May 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, the article is not yet ready for GA status. There are several issues; to start, there are still typos and spelling problems. The most blatant is facism, which is correctly spelled fascism. Majoreditor 14:42, 12 May 2007 (UTC)
I fixed the spelling problems using Microsoft Word. Sorry for the "facism". I also turned all passive sentences into active sentences - except for "Many are seduced by it all." which comes from a blockquote. Passive sentences are now 1% of the article.Kmarinas86 16:06, 12 May 2007 (UTC)

Fourth GA Review (and the third within 5 weeks)[edit]

Kmarinas: You have made great progress with this article, but the GA Review is not a review of progress but a review of the article when the WIAGA standards are applied. Regrettably, I still find it is lacking in a number of respects.

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

1a. Prose continues to be a problem, starting with a tortured first sentence. Also, stating articles with "On (date) (a non-notable reporter) with a (small town newspaper) said (something) is not good prose. You should present the point the newspaper reporter makes as an assertion and source it. However, that doesn't mean the source is reliable. (See WP:V)

I do not get why it is a tortured sentence. It sounds right to me. "The Raëlian Church is an international religious organization which media have investigated for its beliefs, sexual practices,[1] and more recently Clonaid, which claimed that a human clone, Eve, had been born.[2]" That sounds like straight English to me. It is impossible for me to guess what you think the problem sources are. If you don't point them out, or remove them yourself, it is impossible for me to know what they are. Otherwise, I might as well remove the sources which aren't actually the problem in your opinion. If you don't want to talk about that, be WP:BOLD and remove what you think are the bad parts.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
By the way, your suggestion to get rid of the "(date) (a non-notable reporter) with a (small town newspaper) said (something)" stuff helped. I changed it to "(date) a (small town newspaper) said (something)", it appears the key problems were the names of the non-notable reporters. I was suprised by how much the prose improved when I removed those. The sources now look more reliable. Thanks alot!▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 04:35, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As for "(small town newspaper)", I think I have to keep it, especially in the Numbers section, since it is clear that different newspapers have widely different estimates for the same year (like 30,000 (University Wire) versus 65,000 (Palmer) in the year 2003).▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 16:08, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
As of now, the memberships statistics are now at Wikisource:Raëlian Church▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

1b. The lead paragraph is not a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD;

It refers to about every section, except the embassy, swastika, and geniocracy part. Tell me, is it missing just those? It summarizes the entire members section, the entire activities section, as well as the cult status, offenders, and korea sub sections. So what is missing besides what I have listed? I have made significant effort to improve that. During the second GA review when the article was like this, it passed WP:MoS (note that the template on top has been changed from vertical to horizontal).▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
And for goodness sakes, let's point out that you gave out the second review. I'm glad you are interested in this article.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 06:20, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
Suppose I had the totally wrong perception here. What if you meant that the lead is too long, and is therefore not a "summary". Is the lead too long? I've seen longer leads in Featured Artcles, but they are different subjects.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
By looking at the leads of Good Articles, I determined that what you meant is that the lead is too long. I have shortened that.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 16:48, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

:Let's look once more at WP:LEAD.

Bold title? yes
Sections and table of contents? yes
Establish context? I Added "In sociology," to the intro. But I am not too confident that it is an improvement on the article.
Provide an accessible overview? Yes for twelfth graders and above. Please, this is a small minority cult/religion, it's not Kindergarden material.
Relative emphasis? yes
Leads for poor articles? n/a
Length? yes
Now lets break apart the beginning introduction:
The lead section, lede, or introduction of a Wikipedia article is the section before the first headline. CHECK
The table of contents, if displayed, appears between the lead section and the first headline. CHECK
The lead should be capable of standing alone as a concise overview of the article, establishing context, summarizing the most important points, explaining why the subject is interesting or notable, and briefly describing its notable controversies, if there are any. CHECK
The emphasis given to material in the lead should roughly reflect its importance to the topic according to reliable, published sources. CHECK, see below.
  1. ^ a b Religious Movements Homepage: Raelians (paragraph on Operation Condom), University of Virginia. Retrieved 4 March 2007. [investigated for its sexual practices? EVIDENT]
  2. ^ THE CLONING DEBATE, MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. 27 December 2002. Retrieved 10 February 2007. [investigated for Clonaid, which claimed that a human clone, Eve, had been born? EVIDENT]
  3. ^ Grescoe, Taras, Raël love, Salon.com Travel. 8 March 2000. Retrieved 13 March 2007 [A majority of journalists have labeled it a cult? HAD TO CHANGE THIS].
  4. ^ a b Palmer, p. 1-3 [who has studied the movement for over a decade? MOST LIKELY] [has called it a new religious movement? EVIDENT].
  5. ^ a b c d e f g Isaksson, Stefan, New Religious UFO Movements: Extraterrestrial Salvation in Contemporary America - AnthroBase, California State University, Fresno. Spring 2000. Retrieved 25 April 2007. [The movement has clergy, including Priests, Bishops, and a movement-wide leader, known as Raël, who is also its founder? EVIDENT]
  6. ^ a b c Palmer, p. 64. [Members of the Raëlian Church are people who have had Raëlian baptism in ceremonies which happen four times a year? MAYBE MORE THAN 4, BUT THIS IS FROM PALMER. STILL, FOUR IS AT LEAST 4.] [They consist largely of Raëlians who have read and converted to the books written by Raël? EVIDENT]
  7. ^ a b c 'Clone Baby' & Raelians, NBC 4 Los Angeles. 5 May 2005. Retrieved 12 March 2007. [Together, their number may be as high as 65,000? THE WORD "MAY" INDICATES THE SOURCES RELIABILITY. OBVIOUSLY A ROUNDED NUMBER IS NOT EXACT, BUT SO WHAT.] ['the number' gives followers of the Raëlian ideology a minority status among faiths? EVIDENT]
  8. ^ a b I-Team: Alien Nation, Raelians Moving Headquarters to Las Vegas, WorldNow and KLAS. 8 May 2007. Retrieved 8 May 2007. [Among them are devout women who participate in groups such as Raël's Girls and the Order of Angels? THE MEDIA SEE THAT AS EVIDENT]
  9. ^ a b Broughton, Philip D. Promise of as much sex as you want and everlasting life, The Daily Telegraph. 31 December 2002. Retrieved 13 March 2007. [Among them are devout women who participate in groups such as Raël's Girls and the Order of Angels? THE MEDIA SEE THAT AS EVIDENT]
  10. ^ a b Palmer, p. 144. [An inner body, or structure, within the Raëlian Church includes the Order of Angels? [STATEMENTS FROM NEWS SOURCES CAN BE ASSERTED WHY CANNOT STATEMENTS FROM PALMER BE ASSERTED? NEITHER NECESSARILY HAVE AN ELABORATE FACT CHECKING TEAM WHICH WOULD INVESTIGATE THE MOVEMENT DIRECTLY AND WITH PHYSICAL EVIDENCE, SUCH AS DOCUMENTATION SHOWING THE STRUCTUREHOOD OF THE ORDER OF ANGELS.]]
  11. ^ a b c McCann, Brigitte, Raelian Nation angels poised to die for prophet, Calgary Sun. 7 October 2003. Retrieved 10 January 2007. [An inner body, or structure, within the Raëlian Church includes ... clergy who organize seminars [DESPITE THE NATURE OF THE SOURCE, THAT IS IRRELEVANT, SINCE IT IS CRITICAL TO THE MOVEMENT AS WELL AS STATING WHAT IS EVIDENT IN LATER PARTS OF THE ARTICLE, AS WELL AS THE OVERWHEMLING LACK OF EVIDENCE FOR THEIR NON-EXISTENCE.]
  12. ^ Palmer, p. 77. [Palmer says the movement intentionally stirs a moderate level of controversy which leads to criticism by both religious and non-religious fronts? OBVIOUS. THE BOOK IS HERS.] [Palmer says ... provocation serves the Raëlian Church as a way to retain its members? DITTO]
  13. ^ a b Palmer, p. 63. [However, members recieved critical attention as a result of two pedophiles discovered in their ranks who were later sentenced to prison and expelled from movement? ASSERTED AND VERIFIED BY ANOTHER SOURCE LATER IN THE ARTICLE]
  14. ^ a b c d Ji-young, So, Raelian Cult Leader Threatens to Sue Korea Over Denied Entry, Korea Times. 3 August 2003. Retrieved 12 March 2007 [Much of their recent criticism stems from the claims of the Clonaid project, and as a result, the Raëlian leader and his wife were banned from Korea by authorities in 2003? THIS IS EVIDENT ACCORDING TO THE SOURCES USED LATER IN THE ARTICLE, SO WHY CANNOT IT NOT BE EVIDENT FOR WIKIPEDIA?]
The lead should not "tease" the reader by hinting at but not explaining important facts that will appear later in the article. [THE LEAD IS LONG. SOME THINGS ARE SELF EXPLANATORY SUCH AS "Palmer says". NO NEED TO EXPLAIN WHY IT WAS CALLED A CULT IN THE LEAD. THAT IS JUST TOO MUCH IN MY OPINION. - JUST KIDDING. GOOGLE NEWS SHOWS MORE RESULTS FOR RAELIAN SECT THAN RAELIAN CULT. I AM SUPRISED. =)]
It should contain up to four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate. CHECK
[It] should be written in a clear, accessible style so as to invite a reading of the full article. [I GUESS A SUBJECT ON RELIGION REQUIRES WHAT THEY CALL "SUPER SENTENCES" IN ELEMENTARY SCHOOL (THAT IS TO SAY LONG SENTENCES). SOME SUBJECTS ARE NOT FOR TODDLERS.]▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 05:44, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 19:19, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

2b. The issue here is not whether most of the sources are organs of the subject of the article, it is whether they are reliable.

Organs of the subject? "Whether" they are reliable is an issue? Just how do I "estabilish" reliability for each and every source that I use? Do I use another source to back the source up? Then what about that source, do I use another source to back that up as well? How do I estabilish that sources, such as the Korea Times or Daily Telegraph are "not reliable"?▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
The majority of those sources with "contradicting" membership figures are now at wikisource.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 19:22, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
As for all signficant views, I presume that you doubt that all signficant views are being represented. What are your feelings on that?▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 03:46, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Assuming that I have mostly addressed the issues mentioned, this is what I would rate the article:

GA review (see here for criteria)
  1. It is reasonably well written.
    a (prose): b (MoS):
  2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.
    a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):
  3. It is broad in its coverage.
    a (major aspects): b (focused):
  4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.
    a (fair representation): b (all significant views):
  5. It is stable.
  6. It contains images, where possible, to illustrate the topic.
    a (tagged and captioned): b lack of images (does not in itself exclude GA): c (non-free images have fair use rationales):
  7. Overall:
    a Pass/Fail:

"Ressurected" commentary, and additional comments[edit]

1a. Prose continues to be a problem, starting with a tortured first sentence. I am not going to list every sentence that is problematic. That is what a Peer Review is for.

The first setence has been improved.
NEW: In sociology, the Raëlian Church is an international organization which media have investigated for its beliefs, sexual practices,[1] and more recently a company that says it offers human cloning.[2]
OLD: The Raëlian Church is an international religious organization which media have investigated for its beliefs, sexual practices,[1] and more recently Clonaid, which claimed that a human clone, Eve, had been born.[2]

1a. Prose continues to be a problem, starting with a tortured first sentence. Also, stating articles with "On (date) (a non-notable reporter) with a (small town newspaper) said (something) is not good prose. You should present the point the newspaper reporter makes as an assertion and source it. However, that doesn't mean the source is reliable. (See WP:V)

The plethora of membership statistics have been moved to Wikisource without the "non-notable reporters" listed on there. Also, in Wikisource, it is ok to not to assert their point, without harming the GA of article which links to it. Due to the nature of the statistics (media has contradictory numbers), it is necessary not to assert the point, otherwise the assertions will blatantly contradict each other and confuse the reader. See Wikisource:Raëlian Church.

1b. The lead paragraph is not a summary of the article, per WP:LEAD;

It is now. The main issue was its length. I did not make it "too short" in the process either.

2b. The issue here is not whether most of the sources are organs of the subject of the article, it is whether they are reliable.

Part of the issue was resolved by moving the membership stastics to Wikisource.
A human applying rules "robotically" decided to delete the article on Wikisource on the basis of the first few lines that weren't statistics, so I'm putting the membership statistics back into the article.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 04:24, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

2b. The issue here is not whether most of the sources are organs of the subject of the article, it is whether they are reliable. Some of these are not. The References section continues to list just two sources, one was written by the founder and the other by a friendly academic.

I am going to attempting to cover that now.
Not anymore:
* Bates, Gary, Alien Intrusion: UFOs and the Evolution Connection New Leaf Press, 2005. ISBN 0890514356.
* Edwards, Linda, A Brief Guide to Beliefs: Ideas, Theologies, Mysteries, and Movements. Westminster John Knox Press, 2001. ISBN 0664222595.
* Lewis, James R. Controversial New Religions Oxford University Press, 2004. ISBN 019515682X.
* Palmer, Susan J. Aliens Adored. Rutgers University Press, 2002. ISBN 0813534763.
* Partridge, Christopher H. UFO Religions. Routledge, 2003. ISBN 0415263239.
* Raël, Intelligent Design. Nova Distribution, 2006. ISBN 2940253003 Parameter error in {{isbn}}: Invalid ISBN..
* Stock, Gregory, Redesigning Humans: Choosing our Genes, Changing our Future. Houghton Mifflin Books, 2002. ISBN 061806026X.
* Tandy, Charles, Doctor Tandy's First Guide to Life Extension and Transhumanity Universal-Publishers.com, 2001. ISBN 1581126506.
Feel free to change you mind at anytime.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 22:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the League of Copyeditors would help. May I recommend you take a couple of weeks before renominating this article? Argos'Dad 00:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

They can, but I am much faster, as least when it comes to responding. Please let someone consider this article for GA. It will take on average 5 weeks for people reviewing GA to respond in any case.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 20:16, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

On hold[edit]

When reviewing this article for GA, please take advantage of the On hold option. I do not like it when it is failed before I have time to make the adjustments to the article. Other Wikipedians appear to benefit from it.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 04:14, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Good Article Review[edit]

I should ask for this article's failed good article nomination to be reviewed, as there is no basis for the claim that there are image tag problems, especially as of now since all the images in the article are in Wikipedia Commons, except the one in the infobox and picture of Raelian symbols.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 18:21, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I have reviewed 7 articles in the past 2.5 hours using a new template, which I believe is very effective for evaluating GA's. I will attempt to use that same template here:

Raëlian Church
SCORES IN KEY AREAS
Legality A A A A
Neutrality A A A A
Writing A A A A
Sources A A A A
Citations A A A A
06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


All the pictures are good for use in this article, since all of them are in the Wikimedia Commons except for the Raelian-logos, which are proper fair-use. Overall neutrality should be good enough to allow for GA, though any percieved neutrality issues are probably minor and due to the subjects controversial cult-ish nature. The writing is as good as other GAs, while having an appropriate lead, but it may or may not be FA-quality. Every paragraph is cited and there seperate Footnotes and References sections with plenty of third-party hard references. Sorry, I couldn't help it, but given all the articles which I gave more than a 50% chance passing, this has got to be closer to GA than some of them! :) ◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 06:07, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Moving from GAC page[edit]

{I am moving this from the GAC page since it was cluttering up the philosophy and religion section. Awadewit | talk 06:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC))

  1. Respond to the ones which had this problem and explain why:
  1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ra%C3%ABlian_Church_in_South_Korea.jpg (Tagged as FREE - Raelian.com)
  2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ra%C3%ABlian_Membership_Estimates.jpg (Tagged as GFDL-self, with proof (Excel Spreadsheet) that I created it) Moved to Wikisource.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 05:24, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  3. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Raelian_Women_at_Love_Hug_Festival_in_Seoul%2C_South_Korea.jpg (Tagged as FREE - Raelian.com)
  4. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ra%C3%ABl_giving_a_Cellular_Transmission.jpg (Tagged as FREE - Raelian.com)
  5. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Amour%27s_Raelian_Presentation_at_Onyang_High_School%2C_South_Korea.jpg (Tagged as FREE - Raelian.com)
  6. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Yes_to_Human_Cloning.png (Tagged as Book Cover) - In this case, its use doesn't belong in the article since it is both non-free and not discussed in the article. Nevertheless, it's quicker to remove this image than it is to "quick" fail the article.▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
  7. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Ra%C3%ABlians_asking_to_stop_the_prohibition_of_Ra%C3%ABl%27s_entry_into_Korea.jpg (Tagged as FREE - Raelian.com)
  8. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Raelian.jpg (Tagged as FREE - Raelian.com)▬█ ♪♪♫ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ 03:56, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review[edit]

Apologies for the delay - we are dealing with a backlog at the moment! I will be reviewing this article, and will post a review in the next 24 hours or so. One thing that you can work on are the references that point to Google News Archive search results, which violate WP:CITE in that the results are transient - it is also unlikely to be a suitable reference to anything. But as I say, I will review the article thoroughly and post a review shortly. Any questions throughout this process should be posted to my talk page . Best wishes --Fritzpoll 00:06, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, a few things in my real life caught up with me, and I didn't get back here to do the review. I'll sort this out by Monday. --Fritzpoll 17:19, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

The lead, GA, and FA[edit]

From what I understand, Taiwanese aborigines is now a Featured Article and was listed as a good article when the lead was about the same size. However, I know that GA can be failed for not "summarizing" the article in the lead, and sometime that translates into "the lead is too long". Please keep in mind that the lead of Taiwanese aborigines is longer, thus the lead length of the Raëlian Church article is not a good reason to fail it for GA.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 20:28, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

Right now it has 39,422 characters and therefore follows WP:LEAD#Length◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 21:18, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

I reduced the redundant footnotes in the lead. It appears that most FA's and GA's have no where near 17 footnotes in the lead.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 23:16, 24 June 2007 (UTC)

"pro-sex organization"?[edit]

usually an adjective like this, with 'pro', implies there is an 'anti'. What are some of the 'anti-sex' organizations compared with which the Raelian Church is 'pro-sex'?142.68.43.14 01:53, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

"usually implies" ?... in logic, either something implies the other or it doesn't. As for examples of anti-sex organizations see Anti-pornography movement.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 04:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

GA Review - On Hold[edit]

I have placed this on hold, as there are significant corrections to be made, which should nonetheless be possible to complete in the allowed "on hold" period.

Lead

  • There are too many date ranges in brackets. This is a problem, because I don't know what they all relate to. For instance, there are two names for the church both apparently in use. my suggestion would be to remove these for clarity unless absolutely necessary
Done. I removed the date ranges from lead and two other versions of the name removed from lead.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "devout women" - is the word "devout" a subjective judgement, or a name? If subjective, change it, if not, rewrite this to make it clear.
Done. I removed the word "devout".◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "organization may have as many as sixty-five thousand members" - it either does or doesn't. Reference or remove, though some comment on size is necessary.
Done. Reference to "clone baby and raelians" readded.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "apologetic sociologist" - what is this? wikilink if appropriate. Looks like it could be subjective, so I thought clearing this up would be good
Done. I removed the word "apologetic".◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "some disturbing people" - tone and subjectivity failure - rewrite.
Done. I removed the word "disturbing".◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "The movement's controversies, most notably Clonaid's claims of successful human cloning, have led national authorities, mainstream media, and young adults to investigate their activities." - reference these claims.
Done. I readded the references.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
What is strange is that I added these problems while I was waiting for the article to be assessed o_o.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Membership Estimates You don't need to say "See (main topic)" with that template in place. However, without this, this is a very short section, and should be merged into another section.

I'll try adding it to Original name and changing that section title. I have replaced the section as well. Please report any problems about this move, if any.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Structure

  • This section is not well structured. It is difficult to read, and I don't really understand what it means, so it is difficult to make comments to improve it. I suggest breaking it up into more than one paragraph, and try to avoid placing so many clauses in the sentences.
Done. I made two new paragraphs, splitted some sentences, and clarified some bits.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • " says a Raëlian spokeswoman in April 7, 2000." - two things here: tense is wrong, and given that you have cited it, is there any need for this bit at all?
Done. I removed that entire clause.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Women

  • I think the "see also" template is inappropriate here
Done. I removed the template.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "Raël even equates the "Age of Apocalypse" or "Age of Understanding" as the "Age of Women"." - first mention of these - they look important, but what are they?
Age of Apocalypse - According to raelism it is the period in which man is able to understand the origins of its creation.
Age of Understanding - Same thing. Raelians believe that the etmology of the word apocalypse is understanding. According to the article on apocalypse, the word literally means lifting the veil.
Age of Women - This refers to the quote on Rael provided by Lewis.
Since the context is lacking in some people, I wish there was a way to spell it out in the section without being too far from the subject of the section itself. But that is impossible. Actually, I will have to remove the sentence entirely in the "name of clarity".
◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 00:04, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
  • Why is "French chemist" referenced?
I removed the reference.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
  • "JC's girls" links to a woman's name. Why? What is the significance of this name? What does it stand for?
If you had clicked the link, you could have noticed that she was founder of JC's Girls. But I will now spell out her name and link her name instead of her movement.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Transmission of the Cellular Plan

  • " like adult baptisms in Christianity" - I'm not certain that this is ubiquitously true, since some believe is partial or full submersion.
Done. I removed the simile.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 14:09, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

There is still a lot more to be corrected, but I have to go to work - I will finish this later on. Any comments to my talk page. --Fritzpoll 09:50, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

My first GA review[edit]

This is the first time I have reviewed an article for acquiring GA status. I have done a lot of reviewing in my life, but not in Wikipedia, so my criteria for what is good and what is not might differ from the wikiconsensus.

That said, let me start out by saying thank you for introducing me to a new subject. I had never heard of Raelians before, and I found reading about them fascinating.

Most of the comments I read dealt with the language of the article. The language does, indeed have a lot of problems, but I think the major - and much more daunting - problem is one of organization. Having looked over some of the various articles on the subject (Raelism, Raelian Church, History of Raelism), I find myself confused about what belongs where, and whether three separate articles on the subject really make an overall understanding of Raelism clearer than if there were only one.

When I think about how an article on a religion might be organized, I think of the following topics:

Beliefs

Theology (their concept of God)
Ontology (origin of the universe)
Ethics (what do they think of right and wrong, and what sanctions - human or divine - are imposed on violators of ethical rules)

History

Founder, inspiration
Growth
Current status - where are the followers located, legal status, and so on
Internal and external controversies - schisms, legal battles, scandals, notoriety, accusations of cultism.
Sociology - who are members, how are new members recruited, socioeconomic characteristics of members.

Scriptures (what religious texts do they follow)

Ceremonies

Holidays
Forms of worship

Organization

Clergy, congregations, clerical hierarchy
Membership (how do people join, how many members are there, what sociological characteristics do the members have)
Legislation and adjudication (who makes the rules, how, and how are disputes about rules settled?)


I realize that Raelism is different from most religions in that it is, in a sense, antireligious - denying the divine, opposing traditional forms of morality and so on - but I believe it nonetheless could be discussed in the terms above.

Now most of these topics are covered in some place or other in the three articles, but not in any discernible order or with any clear structure. It is, I believe the lack of order in the articles, and not the actual content, that have given rise to complaints of NPOV.

I realize that implementing the suggestions of this critique would involve a lot more work than merely shuffling around a few words. But if you really believe in the topic - as it is apparent that you do from your impassioned writing and your responses to criticisms - I think it might be well worth the effort. As for problems of grammar and syntax, they can be cleaned up later.

The bad news is that the article, as it stands, would certainly not get my vote for GA status. The good news is that the subject is worthy, and with (a lot of) work, it could become good.

--Ravpapa 15:14, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Is it true that if I work harder on this article, then higher the standards are imposed? Not fair.[edit]

How come is it that the quicker I respond and fix some of the problems, the higher the standard is raised. Come on people, this is not Featured Articles. I've done this several times now. I am certain that this article is not recieving fair treatment. Here is the consensus on what makes a good article:

1. It is well written. In this respect:

(a) the prose is clear and the grammar is correct; and
(b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.[1]

For point 1, I believe that I have beaten the heck out of the previous version. Most complaints surrounding prose are by those, who somehow, can't understand what I am saying. The last problems with MoS concerned that the lead did not summarize the article. What was so stupid about that is that edits that I made to the lead while waiting "years" for a review were probably reason why it was rejected. Everytime that happens, I am like "wtf".

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it:

(a) provides references to sources used;
(b) cites reliable sources for quotations and for material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, preferably using inline citations for longer articles;[2][3] and
(c) contains no original research.

As for point 2, if anyone complains about it, I say "holy $hit". The article has 72 citations right now, and it uses a variety of sources, both primary, hard reference, and third party. That is three times more than the average GA.

3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it:

(a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[4] and
(b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).

Point 3 concerns the broadness of the article. The subject, Raelian Church, is about its organization, activities, a few of its beliefs, and its criticism. Since it is about the church, putting too much emphasis on the beliefs constitutes undue weight. But for a "Raëlianism" article, this would be ok.

4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

As for point 4? The only problems that I believe still exist are individual words and people's opinions on whether everything in the article is balanced or not. I believe the latter is extremely contentious, but luckily, this article is better off then the Scientology article when it comes to this. According to the first reviwer, this should be fixable within the on hold period, but given the contentious nature of the problem, I cannot easily guess all the words which need replacing. I would be dismayed to see this rejected before all that is need to fix this is pointed out, since the only way this problem would be fixed would be for others to review the article, since the source of the perceived disharmony is peculiar to each individual, and no, I can't read your mind. According to the next reviewer, the content from other articles should incorporated. I hope that doesn't mean all other articles related to Raelism! But if that is done, it will have to be called "Raëlianism" since it would incorporate both the organization and its beliefs.

5. It is stable; that is, it does not change significantly from day to day and is not the subject of an ongoing edit war. Vandalism reversions, proposals to split or merge content, and improvements based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply.[5]

I don't see anyone seriously questioning point 5 - stability - since I am practically only one to make major changes to the article. But the last time this article "failed" on stability was because the exceptions of the above rule were not taken into account. In other words, a flawed review. Please do not make the same mistake.

6. Any images it contains are appropriate to the subject, with succinct captions and acceptable copyright status. Non-free images must meet the criteria for fair use images and be labeled accordingly. A lack of images does not disqualify an article from Good Article status.

If anyone has a problem with point 6, I say "holy $hit". The images are almost all from Wikimedia Commons, with the exception of the image with three logos, each within the 200px requirement. I cannot understand a person who would reject the article, this time, on those grounds. The last time this happened is final time it needs to happen. The images used this time are simply acceptable.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 06:09, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

New article[edit]

Raëlianism

English! English! English! English! English! English![edit]

"I had never heard of Raelians before, and I found reading about them fascinating."

"The language does, indeed have a lot of problems, but I think the major - and much more daunting - problem is one of organization."

I think Raëlianism takes care of the issue of organization once and for all. Hell, if that is not enough merging of the articles, I am going to have to go home. I hope this means the language is even easier to deal with than birth pangs of having to create new article with an organization to suit the purpose of satifsying the demands of review. But the on hold period simply will have to be extended beyond 48 hours. It has nothing to do with my lack of participation, but the fact that reviewing other peoples work is a generous and probably distracting activity, and the first reviewer associated with this on hold period did not finish his or her review.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 06:24, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

        • the following is an email that has been sent to group of females supposed to be a closed raelian group called Golden Ribbon their tasks suppose to be serving the aliens sexually when they come and visit us on plante earth and of course serve the prophet sexually and not suppose to refuse any sexual act ie sex slaves. Male raelians not supposed to know about the female raelian sexual relation with the prophet rael because rael as cult leader is unquestionable. Raelian are wellcome to comment about the prophet sex slavery but please do not change the sex slaves message.


                                          Rael females sex slaves


                                           *New Message from RAEL’s Angels Order *
  • Dear Angels,


  • Some important changes are made from now to the Angel's Order.
  • From May 57 a.H., application will offer three choices :
  • Angel
  • Golden Ribbon
  • Choosen

If almost all applicants will be accepted as Angels, Golden Ribbons will be severely selected.

Being a Golden Ribbon means being ready to be at ELOHIMs and Prophets service without any restrictions, including sexually. So those who are actually Golden Ribbons and are not willing to comply with these requirements, by choice or because they are engaged in an exclusivity relationship with their sexual partners, will have to abandon their Golden Ribbon and be simple Angels. All Angels have to fill this new application form to choose.

  • It is unthinkable that when our Beloved Creators arrive, some Golden Ribbon welcome them very closely but refuse to have close relationship with them. The privilege to be in close contact with them implicate to be open to everything without any restrictions and without the disrespectful attitude of refusing intimate contacts.
  • The privilege to be close to them should be reserved to those who are deeply in love with them, of a religious love, ready to give them everything without any restriction, including their own life if it was necessary to protect them.
  • It is much better to be a "simple " angel than to be one day in a position to refuse anything to the ELOHIM or the Prophets. Those choosing to be simple Angels are also very important even if they don't wish to give everything, they have the beautiful mission to support, help organize and take care of the Golden Ribbons. They should not at all feel any shame or frustration of not accepting to give everything. It is much better to never put yourself in the terrible situation of being forced one day to do something you don't like or insulting our Creators and Prophets by refusing close contacts with them. It is very important to really ask yourself what you want to give. If the answer is "all without any limitation", then you can make application to be Golden Ribbon. And devote yourself totally to love the ELOHIM and the Prophets. Even being ready to give your own life.
  • Of course the Choosen Ones, being or not Golden Ribbons, fall automatically in this category. So, if you are a Chosen One, you don't have to fill this new application to choose again between normal Angels and Golden Ribbons as you already are ready to give everything for the Elohim and the Prophets without any limitation.
  • Very soon new training seminars will take place for those accepted as Golden Ribbons to prepare them for the most important day of our History. This will take place before the next seminars in order for those who select it to be ready to take care of our Beloved Prophet if they wish to. One more time, it's up to you to choose to have the privilege to be in close contact with the Last Prophet and to serve him by sending your application to become a Golden Ribbon.
  • Remember that only Golden Ribbons will be able to take care of our beloved Prophet which will be the best training possible for the day of our dreams, the arrival of our Creators, remembering that they watch us through his eyes ! Being close to Him is being close to Them ! If you prefer to be simple Angels, that's also great as you will have a very important place to make our Angel's Order being efficient in promoting femininity and supporting Golden Ribbons.

So, think about it and select without any pressure what you think is better for you ! Please send it back to us as soon as possible as a special seminar for Golden Ribbon will be organize soon ... The summer seminars are coming soon and we must be ready —Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.224.47.10 (talk) 12:43, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF WTF[edit]

The comprehensive Raëlianism article was redirected to Raëlism because it was a huge content fork. There wont be any GA award for the Raëlian Church article because it is not "comprehensive" enough. What the **** is that? Someone please tell me I'm wrong.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 18:31, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

GA review[edit]

This article is on hold as a good article nomination. This is how the article, as of January 18, 2018, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?:
  • Major problem, the prose is not clear. I'm making edits as I go along, but some things I don't understand so can't clarify.
  • "provocation is how the Raëlian Church retains their most allied members" - I don't understand what "provocation" means in this context and how is an "allied member" different from a "member"?
  • "hierarchal inner body" - what is an "inner body"?
  • What is a "guide"?
  • Spell out the levels and their names, a table or list would do this well.
  • "After winning four elections" What elections? This is the first I have read about elections.
  • he is critical of their commitment to defend Raël's life with their own bodies" Do you mean "sceptical"?
  • "Outliers appear when charting the dates of membership estimates." I don't understand this. Dates are by definition a linear series, how can you have outliers when you have only one variable? This also appears to be original research as it has no reference.
  • "In response, Raëlians guides gave their students ten thousand condoms." The word "Their" is unclear. Does this refer to the Raëlians guides' students or the students in the catholic schools?
  • "The Belgian Raelian Movement later lost their law suit against french psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall." If this lawsuit is notable, you need to explain what it was about. If it is not notable, remove this sentence. Why is this in the paragraph on the Belgian pedophiles? Is it related to their sexual abuse convictions?
  • This still isn't clear "Just a few years later, in January 15, 1995, a Belgian court convicted two Raëlian guides for having sexual intercourse with children, and French psychiatrist Jean-Marie Abgrall won a suit against the local Raëlian Movement." Are these events connected? If not, what was the suit about? and why is it mentioned in this paragraph?
  • "Soon after the Canadian media success and sympathy," Saying "success and sympathy" gives an appearance of bias, just give the date.
  • "that restricts voting privileges to those people who are ten percent more intelligent than average" - Please check I understood this correctly when I reworded it.
  • "Claude Vorhilon then closed the seminars at the hotel with a conference which two hundred thirty attended." Does this mean he stopped the seminars immediately, or that he ended the seminars with a conference, as originally planned?
  • As a general note, events that have happened in the past should be discussed in the past tense.
  • "Despite the media coverage of Clonaid, the government of France classifies the Raelian Movement as a secte" Do you mean "despite" or "due to"?
  • "Fifty had their first Raëlian seminar in one of the Las Vegas Raëlian seminars, attended by a total of 180 people." Do you mean "in a seminar attended by a total of 180 people, fifty were attending for the first time."? If so, why is this relevant?
2. Factually accurate?:
  • Yes
3. Broad in coverage?:
  • Yes
4. Neutral point of view?:
  • Yes
5. Article stability?
  • Very!
6. Images?:
  • OK

I'm putting it on hold, while these clarifications are dealt with. Shouldn't take long. Tim Vickers 17:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Revert suggested[edit]

The prose has deteriorated significantly in the few hours since GA passing; I suggest a revert to the GA version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Suggestion taken.◙◙◙ I M Kmarinas86 U O 2¢ ◙◙◙ 03:41, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Issues with the article[edit]

  • References 7, 11, and 26 are non-existent. LaraLove 05:20, 17 July 2007 (UTC)
    • ^ Although the entire Manual of Style should be followed, it is not completely necessary at this level.
    • ^ Unambiguous citation is best done through footnotes or Harvard references at the end of a sentence (see the inline citations essay). It is highly recommended that the article have a consistent style of footnoting. Articles one page or shorter can be unambiguously referenced without inline citations. General statements, mathematical equations, logical deductives, common knowledge, or other material that does not contain disputable statements need not be referenced. Articles whose topics fall under the guideline on scientific citations should adhere to the guideline.
    • ^ It is generally acceptable for good articles to contain a small percentage of sources with borderline reliability; however, most sources should be reliable.
    • ^ This requirement is significantly weaker than the "comprehensiveness" required by WP:FAC; it allows shorter articles, articles that do not necessarily outline every part of the topic, and broad overviews of large topics to be listed.
    • ^ Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.