User talk:Maude Murray

Welcome!

Hi Maude Murray! I noticed your contributions and wanted to welcome you to the Wikipedia community. I hope you like it here and decide to stay.

As you get started, you may find this short tutorial helpful:

Learn more about editing

Alternatively, the contributing to Wikipedia page covers the same topics.

If you have any questions, we have a friendly space where experienced editors can help you here:

Get help at the Teahouse

If you are not sure where to help out, you can find a task here:

Volunteer at the Task Center

Please remember to sign your messages on talk pages by typing four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date.

Happy editing! Esowteric+Talk 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

July 2020

Hello, Maude Murray. We welcome your contributions, but if you have an external relationship with the people, places or things you have written about in the page Frithjof Schuon, you may have a conflict of interest (COI). Editors with a conflict of interest may be unduly influenced by their connection to the topic. See the conflict of interest guideline and FAQ for organizations for more information. We ask that you:

avoid editing or creating articles about yourself, your family, friends, colleagues, company, organization or competitors;
propose changes on the talk pages of affected articles (you can use the {{request edit}} template);
disclose your conflict of interest when discussing affected articles (see Wikipedia:Conflict of interest#How to disclose a COI);
avoid linking to your organization's website in other articles (see WP:Spam);
do your best to comply with Wikipedia's content policies.

In addition, you are required by the Wikimedia Foundation's terms of use to disclose your employer, client, and affiliation with respect to any contribution which forms all or part of work for which you receive, or expect to receive, compensation. See Wikipedia:Paid-contribution disclosure.

Also, editing for the purpose of advertising, publicising, or promoting anyone or anything is not permitted. "Maude Murray" is an alleged third "wife" of the subject. Esowteric+Talk 12:32, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice of Conflict of interest noticeboard discussion

There is currently a discussion at Wikipedia:Conflict of interest/Noticeboard regarding a possible conflict of interest incident with which you may be involved. Thank you.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

You wanted sources, so I gave you one of the two greatest living authorities on Ibn Arabi, who, in turn, was the greatest authority on Islam and Sufism for all time. Lipton discusses Schuon at length, refutes his doctrines annd calls him a "self-appointed spokesman of the Religio perennis. I told people where to find criticisms by the greatest known traditionalist, Rene Guenon, teacher of Schuon. Since you won't let me talk, I say where there are photographs that speak for themselves. How are you ever going to let anyone point out that Frithjof Schuon was a really bad wolf hiding behind the most sublime esoteric language. Wikipedia is going to be the last to know!

Sorry if I broke some rule: I didn't understand what the rules are and this talking is a hard job. I've no idea who can see this, if I'm allowed to send you links or what?

My blog is frithjofschuon.wordpress.com

The website full of Photographs: I don't know how to transmit it. It has legal affidavits on it - from people who saw immoral behaviour at different times - all collaborating one another. The text is often wild; I am not; but here's the name of that: take a look: Dossier Schuon..Appendices Volume II appendix 4 The emperor'snew clothes, by Aldo Vidali.

The reason I know so much is that I was in his arms for 20 years. You want more objective people, who know nothing about his personal life? That's easy: as a scholar, Gregory A. Lipton reached the same conclusions I did without knowing a word about the man's personal life.

The man was literally a holy terror. There must be some way to let people see that. There are blatant lies and omissions in your present text, making him look like exactly what he wanted people to think. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maude Murray (talk • contribs) 15:43, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the article's talk page

Hi Maude, I've left a message for subject experts at the Frithjof Schuon talk page. Hopefully someone there will be able to help you and perhaps be willing to exchange emails, since you find the Wikipedia technology so taxing. This is my own talk page: Esowteric's talk page. Esowteric+Talk 11:07, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frithjof Schuon

I want someone to tell me what he thinks is wrong with my editing, so I can do it right. I suspect that I also need the possibility of teaching someone something about the esoterism of Frithjof Schuon, and the reasons he is a blatant heretic; and why the present Wikipedia text is sheer whitewashing - as if written by him, with, hahaha a COI!. This way of talking is about to drive me crazy though. If I can't exchange emails or do something easie with a human, I may just give up for awhile. I tap ten things and find this place by hit or miss. When I tap "see message" I do not "see message! Maude Murray (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Maude. I'm sorry you're having difficulties.

Each article has its own talk page where changes to the article may be discussed. So, for example, the article on "Frithjof Schuon" has its own talk page "Talk:Frithjof Schuon".

If you click on the following link it will take you directly to a discussion thread entitled "Can subject experts please help Maude Murray?". In that thread, I've asked if any experts on the subject of Frithjof Schuon can help you out, perhaps via email, as you suggested.

You can also add to that thread by clicking on "edit" just to the right of the heading "Can subject experts please help Maude Murray?", adding your own comments, and then saving your changes. Hope this helps, or someone else gets in touch with you. Regards, Esowteric+Talk 14:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, good! You've found the article's talk page at the same time as I was typing. Esowteric+Talk 14:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added a banner to the top of the Frithjof Schuon page, asking subject experts in Sufism or Religion to help you. It links to the article talk page discussions (and the previous edits you wished to make that were reverted). Esowteric+Talk 14:39, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm getting slightly smarter, with your patience, oh Esowteric; but I LOVE EMAILS in comparison to this. Thank you for being so patient: That's a great virtue! I'm here, transparent, frank and human (That means not perfect). Maude Murray (talk) 14:43, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's see if any experts can help you out, Maude, and hopefully exchange emails with you. Like so many other tasks, such as riding a bike, a few skills have to be consciously acquired at first – then it becomes easier and eventually second nature, as Idries Shah once remarked, "once you know how". Esowteric+Talk 14:47, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is too esoteric for me. If someone who is an expert sends me an email, fine. Otherwise, I give up for now...not doubting anybody's good faith; but the criteria for accepting my testimony are too much for my wits! Maude Murray (talk) 17:49, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's impossible for me to inform you, to show you any truth, with the rules you have. The rules let you cover someone who is very likely the greatest heretic of our times as his ideas have spread to all religions and to at least 186 countries. What he teaches is against all the revealed religions. If you would bend a rule and look at those links you'd have all the proof - especially not my site, but the other one. It's irrefutable due to photographs of documents and people. I knew links were forbidden on Wikipedia; but I didn't know they were forbidden on talk pages, and you've got so many rules in a technical language that I can't read them. So I give up! Maude Murray (talk) 07:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frithjof Schuon

Im the greatest living expert on the LIFE of Frithjof Schuon. After several years of trying to help others, Ive also become pretty sharp on why his doctrine is a heresy - in Islam, and in what is usually called Sufism or Tasawwuf, AND in what's called the Religio perennis or perennialism: the concept of there being only one religion, which is the "heart" of all revelations going back to Adam. Now there's one perfect example of a scholar, who reaches the exact same conclusions I do. He did not know a sentence about the personal life of Frithjof Schuon, until he had published his book, called Rethinking Ibn Arabi. His name is Gregory A. Lipton, and I'd never heard of him, until I fell upon a few paragraphs from his book and wrote to him.

Wanting to help people, I made a site, which explains the false doctrines, quotes Lipton, Ibn Arabi, and other great scholars, in addition to letters concerning Frithjof Schuon, by his famous teacher, René Guénon. Also on my site are quotes from all the greatest Sufi masters proving that Frithjof Schuon was a traitor to all he claimed to represent.

He made many paintings of the Virgin Mary, naked, claimed to have had sexual union with her, took the still married wives of three of his close disciples, appeared naked, lied a lot, embraced ..oh it's endless! As I understand it, one may not post a link on Wikipedia, but here, may I? Look at the link I just posted n some talk place. Then glance through my site:

frithjofschuon.wordpress.com

There are about six sites online, written by ex-disciples who left Schuon's group. Unfortunately, they are all so horribly exaggerated and full of unfounded clams, that people did not believe them, until I appeared thirty years after the first one was published. Those sites none the less have some basic facts in them (mostly distorted from things I said) and some brilliant insights.

If you want rules as in a court of law, you could always exclude me, for the very reasons tha make me the one who knows best! Now if anyone cares enough about the truth to look at my site and this:

[redacted]

Then let me know if you still think I must have a conflict of interest. If you tie my hands in all other ways, may I only say that the scholar, Gregory A. Lipton refutes Schuon in his book, Rethinking Ibn Arabi?

It would be good, if a Muslim looked at my site. Any half-well-educated Muslim would see right away what the problems are.

On my site (If a Muslim can be found) there's a page called, "What God said." That would tell someone with faith, why Im going to so much trouble. The facts and doctrines come first though. The worst of matters in Islam is called "bid'ah." That means innovation - leaving what God Himself and His Prophet said. Frithjof Schuon was a perfect example of an innovator; but he claimed to be the summit of a "traditionalist." That's the opposite of an innovator.

Now goodbye for now everybody: the plot thickens! It's up to you folks to allow the "thief" to be caught, or to let more people go peacefully astray after reading Wikipedia. I figure: "When there is peace between the cat and the mouse, the shop falls in ruin." Maude Murray (talk) 16:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not doubting that you are "the greatest living expert on the LIFE of Frithjof Schuon", Maude. But what we need here are other editors who are familiar with Sufism, if not the life of Frithjof Schuon, and are also expert in editing at Wikipedia, so that they can hopefully pull out of this terrible mess at least some reliably sourced material and able to present it in a neutral point of view, giving it due – but not undue – weight. I'm sorry, but that is what Wikipedia requires.

As I mentioned before, what is required are details of published materials (from reliable sources, not self-published sources, nor social media posts, nor the contents of your google drive), eg newspaper articles, web pages, magazines, journals, radio or TV appearances; etc. And the place to present this evidence is on the article's talk page.

Please don't forget that these policies and guidelines are here to protect your rights, too (so that if words were aimed at you instead of Frithjof Schuon, verifiable evidence would similarly be required; etc). Esowteric+Talk 17:01, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esowteric dear: I just got a bright idea! I'd bet you (but that's not allowed in Islam and I'm a Muslim) that the article you have printed now was written by someone with a COI. There are a bunch of "idol-worshippers" around him, who know how to spin esoteric ideas around exactly as is done in your present text. If you can tell me the name(s) of whoever wrote that, then maybe I could wake you up! Michael Fitzgerald, Patrick Aymard, Mark Perry, Patrick Casey, ... or Catherine Schuon, his first wife. There are many; and there are famous people who left him. His greatest Christian disciple was Professor James Cutzinger. Rama Coomaraswamy, Charles Le Gai Eaton, Reynaud Fabbri...many good people woke up before Wikipedia did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Maude Murray (talk • contribs)

Here at Wikipedia, we assume good faith on the part of other editors, Maude – though of course there are exceptions, such as vandalism and an inability to adopt a suitable neutral point of view. Editors generally do their best to work with the verifiable evidence that they come across. Esowteric+Talk 17:36, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In other words, the content is dependent on – and driven by – the existing, verifiable evidence; rather than the other way around (searching for evidence to support our existing beliefs). So, Wikipedia is based on verifiability, rather than truth. Esowteric+Talk 17:42, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frithjof Schuon

I can't see either of two messages I just got email notifications about. It says suppressed! Email please. This is too much. Or forget me. Maude Murray (talk) 05:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maude, your editing of Wikipedia hits all the issues which our policy on conflict of interest tries to prevent:

You've been adding links to your own blog and your google drive (which is what got suppressed) - this is original research. One of Wikipedia's five pillars is "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view" which concludes "Editors' personal experiences, interpretations, or opinions do not belong on Wikipedia."
You have an agenda to right the wrongs your husband did you. That is not what Wikipedia is for.
You keep asking to communicate by email. The ethos of Wikipedia is that it's an open collaboration between editors. Communicating in public, on the talk pages, rather than privately via email, is a big part of that.
Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which is not what you're using it as. If you're not here to help build an encyclopedia it's probably for the best if you forget editing Wikipedia. Cabayi (talk) 07:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]