Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/Cult - Revision history

Ockham at 07:26, 17 August 2010

2010-08-17T07:26:30Z

Ockham: /* See also */

2010-07-24T10:41:17Z

Ockham at 10:38, 24 July 2010

2010-07-24T10:38:39Z

Ockham at 10:38, 24 July 2010

2010-07-24T10:38:16Z

Ockham: Created page with ''''Cults''' are groups with strange beliefs who have an interest in publicising their existence, recruiting new members, and usually suppressing the more unpalatable facts about …'

2010-07-24T10:36:54Z

Created page with ''''Cults''' are groups with strange beliefs who have an interest in publicising their existence, recruiting new members, and usually suppressing the more unpalatable facts about …'

New page

'''Cults''' are groups with strange beliefs who have an interest in publicising their existence, recruiting new members, and usually suppressing the more unpalatable facts about their financial statements and other irregularities. Too many of these to mention, but some of the more amusing include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris Brahma Kumaris], who seem to enjoy some support among Wikipedians, at least judging from the way that those who opposed them are so [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Golden_Circle regularly blocked], simply for saying stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=312939427 this] ("You and your other adherents have wasted too much time of too many people's lives ... never mind mentioning the broken families and suicides that litter your religion's history"). The Scientologists did not fare so well, as is well known (their IP is [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/ currently blocked]), but that is only because a group of prominent Wikipedians dislike scientology - it has nothing to do with any self-governing mechanism that prevents cults from promoting their views on the global electronic reference work. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat Prem Rawat], defended for years by a prominent Wikipedia administrator, although he eventually [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi came to grief].

* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 07:26, 17 August 2010
Line 5:		Line 5:
	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]
	* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/WikipediaCult\|Is Wikipedia a cult?]]		* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/WikipediaCult\|Is Wikipedia a cult?]]
		+	* [http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?s=&showtopic=30387&view=findpost&p=247684 Liberal Catholic Church]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:41, 24 July 2010
Line 4:		Line 4:

	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]
		+	* [[Directory:The Wikipedia Point of View/WikipediaCult\|Is Wikipedia a cult?]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:38, 24 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
	'''Cults''' are groups with strange beliefs who have an interest in publicising their existence, recruiting new members, and usually suppressing the more unpalatable facts about their financial statements and other irregularities. Too many of these to mention, but some of the more amusing include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris Brahma Kumaris], who seem to enjoy some support among Wikipedians, at least judging from the way that those who opposed them are so [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Golden_Circle regularly blocked], simply for saying stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=312939427 this] ("You and your other adherents have wasted too much time of too many people's lives ... never mind mentioning the broken families and suicides that litter your religion's history"). The Scientologists did not fare so well, as is well known (their IP is [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology currently blocked]), but that is only because a group of prominent Wikipedians dislike scientology - it has nothing to do with any self-governing mechanism that prevents cults from promoting their views on the global electronic reference work. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat Prem Rawat], defended for years by a prominent Wikipedia administrator, although he eventually [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi came to grief].		'''Cults''' are groups with strange beliefs who have an interest in publicising their existence, recruiting new members, and usually suppressing the more unpalatable facts about their financial statements and other irregularities. Too many of these to mention, but some of the more amusing include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris Brahma Kumaris], who seem to enjoy some support among Wikipedians, at least judging from the way that those who opposed them are so [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Golden_Circle regularly blocked], simply for saying stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=312939427 this] ("You and your other adherents have wasted too much time of too many people's lives ... never mind mentioning the broken families and suicides that litter your religion's history"). The Scientologists did not fare so well, as is well known (their IP is [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology currently blocked]), but that is only because a group of prominent Wikipedians dislike scientology - it has nothing to do with any self-governing mechanism that prevents cults from promoting their views on the global electronic reference work. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat Prem Rawat], defended for years by a prominent Wikipedia administrator, although he eventually [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi came to grief].
		+
		+	==See also==

	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 10:38, 24 July 2010
Line 1:		Line 1:
−	'''Cults''' are groups with strange beliefs who have an interest in publicising their existence, recruiting new members, and usually suppressing the more unpalatable facts about their financial statements and other irregularities. Too many of these to mention, but some of the more amusing include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris Brahma Kumaris], who seem to enjoy some support among Wikipedians, at least judging from the way that those who opposed them are so [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Golden_Circle regularly blocked], simply for saying stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=312939427 this] ("You and your other adherents have wasted too much time of too many people's lives ... never mind mentioning the broken families and suicides that litter your religion's history"). The Scientologists did not fare so well, as is well known (their IP is [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology/ currently blocked]), but that is only because a group of prominent Wikipedians dislike scientology - it has nothing to do with any self-governing mechanism that prevents cults from promoting their views on the global electronic reference work. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat Prem Rawat], defended for years by a prominent Wikipedia administrator, although he eventually [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi came to grief].	+	'''Cults''' are groups with strange beliefs who have an interest in publicising their existence, recruiting new members, and usually suppressing the more unpalatable facts about their financial statements and other irregularities. Too many of these to mention, but some of the more amusing include the [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brahma_Kumaris Brahma Kumaris], who seem to enjoy some support among Wikipedians, at least judging from the way that those who opposed them are so [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:The_Golden_Circle regularly blocked], simply for saying stuff like [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Brahma_Kumaris_World_Spiritual_University&diff=prev&oldid=312939427 this] ("You and your other adherents have wasted too much time of too many people's lives ... never mind mentioning the broken families and suicides that litter your religion's history"). The Scientologists did not fare so well, as is well known (their IP is [http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/05/29/wikipedia_bans_scientology currently blocked]), but that is only because a group of prominent Wikipedians dislike scientology - it has nothing to do with any self-governing mechanism that prevents cults from promoting their views on the global electronic reference work. See for example [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prem_Rawat Prem Rawat], defended for years by a prominent Wikipedia administrator, although he eventually [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Jossi came to grief].

	* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]		* [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ramtha%27s_School_of_Enlightenment Ramtha's School of Enlightenment], [[What the Bleep]]