Its interesting to read the "Discussion" section on wikipedia there as well.
To qoute page: "Smacksoftruth
Yes, stop deleting and censoring information that doesn't suit what you wish was the truth. Did you know the man? No? i did ...have you met his children? NO? i did! did you meet his wife? NO? I DID! did you know Rabalu? NO? I did. How many World Congress did you attend? Where you in hypatias school in Tijuana? Do you speak spanish? Did you donate thousands of dollars to publish the books? NO NO NO? Maybe its time to put your sleepie head to better use and stop deleting the information from people who did. Also did you rent him a building in Mexico City? Where you in first chamber, second chamber, third chamber? Did you see Arnolda Gomez yell? Where you present and did you wear a blue robe and hold a gnostic mass with samael in mexico city? Maybe its time to admit that your knowledge from a couple of web sites sects and visit to a center for classes and a couple of international congresses leaves plenty of room for laughs and a lot to desired like the truth! so stop deleting from the ones who do know what went on! HERE! HERE! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Smacksoftruth (talk • contribs) .
Yes, but that's original research, which is not allowed on Wikipedia for a number of good reasons. Also, there's no reason to make 9 edits in a row. Take it slow, decide on the edits you want, and then submit them all in one go. Many of these edits are inappropriate for WP; it appears that a few of them are not. But if you make a long series of tiny changes, it becomes impractical for others to find the acceptable edits, and so we will revert the whole series.
Mistercow 16:28, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
Smacksoftruth, your edits are rather fanatical and while SOME "schools" are very harmful, that in no way is represents the whole. Your edits are extremely biased and present Point of View. You are presenting a point of view that you have, which is not allowed on Wikipedia. Like I have said, I do not doubt you have had a bad experience, yet you cannot defeat fanaticism by being a fanatic. You removed the "Independent Schools" section for no reason whatsoever. They exist, therefore the section there must exist. You changed the Pseudo Schools section into a section containing abuse the occurs at ALL schools, which is simply not truth. You state "They may state that only five books should be read,what type of music to listen to, movies to see. and of course not to ask too many questions or talk to people in other sects and other absurdities" which may be true for your fanatical school that followed Amórtegui, but it not true for the many schools I have been in contact with. Amórtegui and his school has nothing to do with true doctrine of Samael Aun Weor. If you have a problem with Amórtegui's schools, perhaps you can write it in that section if you can do so NPOV, or write a whole article about that, again NPOV. Your posts will continue to be reverted because you have repeatedly failed to show any attempt at NPOV. How can I trust your ‘experience’ if you continue to vandalize these articles? --Paul Stone 19:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
In all fairness, I'd like to assume that Smacksoftruth is not a vandal. A vandal changes an article to incite anger in others, or out of total frivility. Smacksoftruth seems to be genuinely trying to make the more accurate, but is either unaware or uncaring of the fact that he/she is going about it inappropriately. The distinction is important because, in general, vandals should be banned immediately, while users who do not follow the rules should at least be given a chance to improve.
Mistercow 19:21, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
If vandal is the wrong choice of words, I apologize. A particular edit to the Samael Aun Weor article prompted it. --Paul Stone 03:24, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Point taken. Mistercow 04:06, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Hehehe. I agree about the vandalism, but it was a mildly amusing edit. Anyway, I'm vaguely interested in this article so it's on my watchlist. Greetings! I hope you will make me welcome. I know a little bit about The Gnostic Movement too, but since verifiability is the important thing here I'll keep it as my business. I'd like to see minority opinions fairly represented in this article. ॐ Metta Bubble puff 04:26, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
In Relation to Gnosticism
This article is about the schools affiliated with Samael Aun Weor, and not about the early form of Christianity known as gnosticism or its modern revivals
Is this line necessary? The very first sentence of the actual article state almost the same thing. Furthermore, I feel it is somewhat misleading because there is, in fact, a lot of relationships between what is understood as 'historical Gnosticism' and what is taught in the schools. --Paul Stone 13:34, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I significantly reworded this line and redirected people to gnosticism - that is how I stumbled on this article - looking for information about the early christian movement called gnosticism. think it is useful Trödel 22:38, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I am a little concerened that this looks like promotion of the movement. For example see list of external references and the links (the number of links is that number reported by google for pages that link to the indicated external "reference"):
] has 0 links
] has 1 link
] has 1 link
] has 3 links
] has 3 links
] has 7 links
] has 13 links
] has 22 unique (of 79 links)
] has 12 unique (of 81 links)
] has 6 unigue (of 123 links)
Link info is accurate as of 2006-06-12. I am not an expert in the subject but the page just feels like promotion of the movement. Additionally, since the external references have lots of interlinks (links to each other) - I am not sure whether it has any notability outside the movement's participants. Trödel 17:51, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
User:Shinmawa removed the prod notice - saying POV problems are not for prod - however, my concern had nothing to do with POV issues - but whether or not we even need an article about this movement when it is mostly promotion and other gnostic articles cover the subject matter sufficiently. Trödel 18:10, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
Suggestions Merge information into Samael Aun Weor, find references for the claims, identify sources outside the movement that can help present the information in a more NPOV manner, delete the article all together. I am not sure what needs to be done so I am soliciting comments from all the (non-IP address and non-vandal reverting) contributors to this article and talk page Trödel 22:59, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I understand your concerns. From what I can tell there are two major points you have brought up: 1) The article is a promotion. 2) The article is summed up elsewhere. However I disagree upon both points.
I created the article because in my experience there is a great deal of confusion regarding the different schools that under the name of Samael Aun Weor, thus this article clearly outlines the major differences between groups. This article contains information that is not found anywhere else on Wikipedia, and its information is not consolidated anywhere on the entire internet as far as I can tell. Thus concerning point two, I do not feel its subject matter is covered in other articles. Someone who is attending one of these schools may find it of value to know that other types of schools exist, and that they contradict each other on various points, as some schools would not offer this information themselves. This, and especially the content of the section entitled Pseudo Schools, is not promoting the movement but rather showing its faults. I disagree with point one because the article itself makes no distinction whatsoever that the movement has any value, good or bad, or that one particular school is better than another, therefore links are provided at the bottom to the let the reader form their own conclusion. In my opinion, that these links are not widely linked by other sites does not say anything important, in fact to remove them or to replace them with third party sites would leave the reader without direct access to the subjects of the article. The movement is found on every continent and even if only those people who considered themselves to be within the movement find this article of value, this is more than enough to be notable, in my view.
Obviously I would like to keep the article. I think the major flaw of the article is the lack of references, I’ll see what I can do about that. We can cut down on the links too as some of them point to the same school. If there is anything else specific about the article you find overly subjective let me know. --Paul Stone 01:14, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Good summary of my concerns - I think you summarized them well. I will continue to read a little on this - and see if I can help with references - if you find some let me know - I found some stuff in spanish (see link I added on the article page - and it's external links) - but i only read English and French fluently - my spanish is very limited Trödel 01:43, 15 June 2006 (UTC)
Bias Neutrality of Article is Questionible
Unfortunately from what I have read the article is bias. This needs to be discuss with the satff of wikipedia. ALL Aun Weor affiliated groups claims legitimacy. "