![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I've added a request that this article be checked for POV/NPOV. I'm sure the article is very far from neutrality and is written in a style more suited to one of the emin society's own publications rather than an encyclopedia. -- wayland 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
A possible way of fixing it would be to take one sentence at a time from the top and examine what's biased in each one.
Let's start with the first sentence: "The Emin is a society that does research into esoteric/occult through human being development." In this first sentence we need to know what the author of it means by researching something through human being development. If the sentence appeared in an emin pamphlet it would obviously be attempting to use vagueness of terms in order to drum up curiousity and some interest in attending open meetings. However, for an encyclopedia the tactics of deliberate vagueness and intentional ambiguity are at odds with the aims of the project as a whole (i.e: to deliver factual (and notable) information in as unbiased a way as possible).
There are all sorts of interpretations which could be put upon the first sentence but none of them are necessarily intended. The overall tone of the article, like that of other emin writings, is to lure and hint at what might be learned from getting involved with some emin teachings. Consequently the whole thing seems like fishing for new members, rather than an objective description.
To fix it I would suggest re-writing whole sections of the text in less ambiguous phrases. Also some of the apparent bias could be removed by examining the items listed as teachings, rather than merely listing them in sort-of "shorthanded" style.
I'll make a start on these changes today. -- wayland 11:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer the former, because of the very many times I was told:
I do not cast out the bulk of the knowledge I have gleaned from the Emin over the simple matter of one position that I find untenable. Nor does Leo lose my reverence for this work. He ascends regardless: "Onward and upward." -- 70.28.153.94 07:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
finally, an article that does justice to the Emin. thank you! -- Vansig 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
This article needs to be completely rewritten. Large parts of it make no sense at all to someone without prior knowledge of the Emin. It has obviously been written by an adherent, and that in itself is not a problem - I am sure there is lots on wikipedia about Christian subjects written by practising Christians, for instance. But some attempt needs to be made to communicate in a manner that can be understood by the rest of us.
I've changed the template from a POV check to the NPOV template - the neutrality of this article is in dispute. The "check" template perhaps didn't adequately reflect this. -- wayland 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
On 9 December 2005,
User:72.137.65.73 exposed some very interesting arguments and then blanked his or her own text. Why?
Remember here, we agree that while neutral point of view is not actually attainable when trying to describe the emin, so far all arguments to keep the POV warning on the page turn out to apply equally to any page in the wikipedia. Considering any article then, however-conflicting the respective witnesses points of view might be, when the conflict settles down and an article becomes stable, it has reached a state somewhat less than consensus, called a tensegrity. That is the closest-to-neutral any article could ever hope to attain. That, my friends, is the egregore of the wikipedia:itself.
Returning to this article, then: at this point, just like any other wikipedia article, the bulk of the article is factual and neutral-enough that contributors are interested only in the occasional nit-pick over individual statements made.
If the tenor of a statement is of concern, let's discuss its problems here. For each statement, we encourage witnesses to please check and correct POV. is it:
if there is disgreement over whether some statement was ever true then who is the witness? move the disputed statement to the talk page for discussion, as were above statements on sexual instruction
Multiple contributors have already put a large effort into this process. Those authors should sit back for awhile and let others gnaw on this, and only stand up for egregius trolls.
There really must be a time limit on this process. Articles must not be stigmatized with POV warnings just because someone doesn't like them. Now is the time for action. -- 70.29.131.204 07:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV warning. See next section for discussion Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
...and I have put it back on, after some "current or ex- member who supports the society" has pulled everything a little too far in his own direction, as I see it.
I do however think there is some progress in the article. I (being myself an "ex-member who has a gripe about the society") can see that quite af few of my own formulations regarding Emin beliefs have been retained by the above mentioned "current or ex- member who supports the society". This, to me, indicates that it should be possible to arrive at a text that is both accurate in the eyes of members and supporters, acceptable to critical ex-members, and informative to everyone else. But we are not quite there yet. Pwesth 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
today, I have made quite a lot of changes to the page. I realize that some of them may seem a bit aggressive to the original authors, but I hope you can appreciate my motives.
No doubt, I have commited several errors myself, but I feel confident that they will be corrected by others in due course.
Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks I have updated the text. After having read the above comments I have removed repeated references and links from the article, rewritten certain sections to remove ambiguity, and added as much detail as seems fitting based on my own personal experience in the Emin Society for a number of years. I have left untouched any previous text that was not ambiguous. I hope this is a useful contribution..AE 13 December 2006.
Yes, you are quite right, I have rewritten these articles..AE. 19 December 2006
Upon re-reading this I agree that there is insufficient information and context for a proper understanding, so I have added briefly some explanation, albiet only with my IP address because I couldn't remember my logon.
It is still inadequate, but I will attempt to put in more up to date information so that it becomes a better represenation of the Emin / Template Network.
Keith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keith**** ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
19th January 2006. Some changes today to remove repeated information and to place new contributions into the existing structure of the article. Some pevious content that had been removed was restored. Confusion tag removed, but is it still confusing? It seems a lot clearer than when the tag was added. What do other readers feel about this? The article above was also moved into the New Changes section of this page so we can keep track of changes more easily; apologies if that was out of order. The links section has also been cleaned up and the Spam warning has been removed. The Insufficient Context tag has also been removed. There is a lot of good background information there now and perhaps there is enough to give the reader a good idea of the subject. Hopefully the article will grow and develop further but for now what do other readers think about the state of the article?..AE
Pwesth 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Pwesth for your comments above. There have been a number of additions to and subtractions from the article over the last month - it has been interesting watching these come and go! Today I have introduced two new sections and reduced the section on Laws which is covered in the article on Laws itself. I hope that this makes an improvement for the moment. AE. 5th March 2007
As there has been no discussion for three months, NPOV tag removed to reduce category backlog. Tyrenius 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality in dispute? Having read this page and some of the history attached to it, it doesn't seem to me to be balanced. I acknowledge that this is a difficult task, but in the greater scheme of things it might be a useful exercise to produce a more rounded description of what, after all, is the endeavour of a group of people, however misguided they may appear to others. I don't think it would be unfair to add a new npov tag. What do other contributors think? Keith****09:21, 27 June 2006(UTC)
Speaking of Laws, it seems to me that "The natural laws" are the laws that Gurdjieff introduced. And if they are, then why is this saying
that "Emin groundwork shows" when these are in fact Gurdjieff's laws.
Therefore it seems to me that this article doesn't credit the rightful owner of those teaching concepts which are being thought. Aeuio 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Tthe truth of things is the truth of things and indeed the Seekers of truth are the seekers of truth - but to say that the 'truth of things' is a word play on the 'seekers of truth' may be stretching one's defense of Gurdijeff too far. Raymond Armin never hid the fact that the origins of his search were inspired in part by Gurdijeff and he credited Gurdijeff. But this is a third party description of another man's work involving a society that has moved on from its originator's teachings. If there are laws that govern the universe, then there are and they aren't the exclusive intellectual property of Gurdijeff, but everyone acknowledges that Gurdijeff preceded and had an influence on Raymond Armin. Equally, you could say that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also had an influence on Raymond Armin, but that hardly negates Armin's contribution to his own body of work. It is also true to say that The Template Foundation has moved a very long way from its origins in terms of articulating and describing those laws, but that it is for each individual to come to their own understanding and their own positions about their life, the universe and everything. The 'law of gravity' is one of the laws that, in part, describes the behaviour of the universe and although the maths of Newton and Einstein's descriptions may not quite predict the motion of galaxies the fundemental principal of masses being attracted to one another holds. So I've removed the npov tag because frankly the origins are properly attributed given the context.
I'm sure that in 'spying in guruland' the writer recounted that the Emin group he was with wore purple (or perhaps white?) clothing, anyway they had one colour that they predominantly wore. Could this be mentioned in the article, and do they still have any clothing preferences today? It would be important in an encyclopedia article, which attempts to describe what they're like. Merkinsmum 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The historical background section is lacking.
There's no wiki article [Raymond Armin]] and the Leo disambiguation page doesn't mention him at all. I haven't been able to find a cause (or exact date) of death so creating a page for him seems premature. In fact, I'd really like to see a citation on either birth or death dates, because the closest I can see is "around 1925" for birth and "2002" for death. The lack of details is curious given the apparent reverence for the man by his followers.
YeauxRly ( talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with Pwesth. It looks like the previous Emin material has been deleted by someone sympathetic to The Emin. This is a shame, as it contained interesting historical material on a fascinating and unique group. If anyone can add it back in it would be a great thing.
Their history is constantly re-mythologised, and this new Wikipedia version which has obliterated previous ones doesn't do that rich history justice. It also air-brushes out the cult controversies of the 70s and 80s, which is not helpful to any student of new religious movements. Whether one subscribes to the anti-cult thesis that people join groups like The Emin because of deception, coercion and "brainwashing" - and I most defnitely don't share those views - they are important historically. Their removal suggests that this article is still not a neutral one. -- William1shaw ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What is this article? It doesn't make any sense from the intro. A religion? Philosophy? Club? What? -- AW ( talk) 07:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV tag - again. The concern with "relevance" that is put forth as an argument for deleting historical facts seems to me plainly dishonest. The whole article is now so abstract and vague as to be completely non-informative, which appears to be the way supporters of the Template Network prefer it. -- Pwesth ( talk) 11:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added this tag mainly because the reference to the controversies in Israel during the eighties that have been added. In itself this is relevant information, but as it stands it needs to be contextualized, both with reference to controversies in other countries (such as Britain, Holland and Denmark), and with reference to the larger picture of the Emin's history in Israel.
A possibility that I favour is to add a separate "criticism" or "controversies" section, as there used to be (see [ | page history])
-- Pwesth ( talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This page was created with the name emin, then moved to emin society, then moved to the Template Network; now you're denying its purpose by asking to remove quite a lot of notable, historical information. shame on you! put it back in, or split the entry into multiple articles -- 99.231.208.23 ( talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, the request to introduce a section on criticism or controversy, demonstrates bias, because neither criticism nor controversy mean fact. On the contrary, the media seeks to introduce 'spin' and controversy into articles to make them more interesting. Therefore mass media reports as a basis for decision making does not result in good decisions. Wikipedia is an encyclopdeia and therefore not a forum in which to introduce unqualified media speculation as 'fact'. I still argue that since this is an article on the Template Foundation and not the Emin, Emin history is irrelevant. That would belong on a page on the Emin. The Template Foundation is different and new. There is a commonality of membership, but there are many new members for whom the history is irrelevant. PWesth's assertion of dishonesty seems to declare his own intention. A fair and balanced description of what the case actually is doesn't necessarily mean the article is biased. For example, the Emin's history in Israel is not a negative one. The Template Foundation's activities in Israeli today have no negative connotations. On the contrary, there are lots of very positive things to be said about it. But they are hardly newsworthy. Therefore, Im removed that reference, because it is partial, biased and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith**** ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This Emin article was hijacked by the Template Network. I think, it should be renamed again into Emin society, even when it does exist no longer. Much from before May 2007 can be re-inserted, in adapted form. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 13:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
A problem with the recovery of deleted texts may be the absence of Reliable Sources. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved to Emin (esoteric movement) by User:Wickey-nl. In the future, make a move or request one. Don't do both. -- BDD ( talk) 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The Template Network → Emin society – Original name. This article is hijacked by The Template Network, which mainly removed content about Emin, without adding substantial text. The history belongs to the Emin article. If relevant, The Template Network can start an own article. Wickey-nl ( talk) 11:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I found an even more satisfying title: Emin (esoteric movement). It covers the organisation itself as well as the movement/its members/its philosophy. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 16:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Emin (esoteric movement). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.template.nl/en/producten/detail/1874717060.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a strong concern, looking at the edit history for this page, that anything that might be perceived as critical has been removed from the article. Even if these things are contentious there should at least be a "Criticisms and controversy" section.
Examples:
You don't have to agree with the analysis but this page's edit history looks like it has been censored by a fanatic.
If you guys want this to look less like a cult, try letting some diversity of opinion exist on your wiki page 196.15.206.114 ( talk) 05:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on 1 April 2012 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
|
I've added a request that this article be checked for POV/NPOV. I'm sure the article is very far from neutrality and is written in a style more suited to one of the emin society's own publications rather than an encyclopedia. -- wayland 14:16, 7 October 2005 (UTC)
A possible way of fixing it would be to take one sentence at a time from the top and examine what's biased in each one.
Let's start with the first sentence: "The Emin is a society that does research into esoteric/occult through human being development." In this first sentence we need to know what the author of it means by researching something through human being development. If the sentence appeared in an emin pamphlet it would obviously be attempting to use vagueness of terms in order to drum up curiousity and some interest in attending open meetings. However, for an encyclopedia the tactics of deliberate vagueness and intentional ambiguity are at odds with the aims of the project as a whole (i.e: to deliver factual (and notable) information in as unbiased a way as possible).
There are all sorts of interpretations which could be put upon the first sentence but none of them are necessarily intended. The overall tone of the article, like that of other emin writings, is to lure and hint at what might be learned from getting involved with some emin teachings. Consequently the whole thing seems like fishing for new members, rather than an objective description.
To fix it I would suggest re-writing whole sections of the text in less ambiguous phrases. Also some of the apparent bias could be removed by examining the items listed as teachings, rather than merely listing them in sort-of "shorthanded" style.
I'll make a start on these changes today. -- wayland 11:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I would prefer the former, because of the very many times I was told:
I do not cast out the bulk of the knowledge I have gleaned from the Emin over the simple matter of one position that I find untenable. Nor does Leo lose my reverence for this work. He ascends regardless: "Onward and upward." -- 70.28.153.94 07:32, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
finally, an article that does justice to the Emin. thank you! -- Vansig 18:37, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
This article needs to be completely rewritten. Large parts of it make no sense at all to someone without prior knowledge of the Emin. It has obviously been written by an adherent, and that in itself is not a problem - I am sure there is lots on wikipedia about Christian subjects written by practising Christians, for instance. But some attempt needs to be made to communicate in a manner that can be understood by the rest of us.
I've changed the template from a POV check to the NPOV template - the neutrality of this article is in dispute. The "check" template perhaps didn't adequately reflect this. -- wayland 23:31, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
On 9 December 2005,
User:72.137.65.73 exposed some very interesting arguments and then blanked his or her own text. Why?
Remember here, we agree that while neutral point of view is not actually attainable when trying to describe the emin, so far all arguments to keep the POV warning on the page turn out to apply equally to any page in the wikipedia. Considering any article then, however-conflicting the respective witnesses points of view might be, when the conflict settles down and an article becomes stable, it has reached a state somewhat less than consensus, called a tensegrity. That is the closest-to-neutral any article could ever hope to attain. That, my friends, is the egregore of the wikipedia:itself.
Returning to this article, then: at this point, just like any other wikipedia article, the bulk of the article is factual and neutral-enough that contributors are interested only in the occasional nit-pick over individual statements made.
If the tenor of a statement is of concern, let's discuss its problems here. For each statement, we encourage witnesses to please check and correct POV. is it:
if there is disgreement over whether some statement was ever true then who is the witness? move the disputed statement to the talk page for discussion, as were above statements on sexual instruction
Multiple contributors have already put a large effort into this process. Those authors should sit back for awhile and let others gnaw on this, and only stand up for egregius trolls.
There really must be a time limit on this process. Articles must not be stigmatized with POV warnings just because someone doesn't like them. Now is the time for action. -- 70.29.131.204 07:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the NPOV warning. See next section for discussion Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
...and I have put it back on, after some "current or ex- member who supports the society" has pulled everything a little too far in his own direction, as I see it.
I do however think there is some progress in the article. I (being myself an "ex-member who has a gripe about the society") can see that quite af few of my own formulations regarding Emin beliefs have been retained by the above mentioned "current or ex- member who supports the society". This, to me, indicates that it should be possible to arrive at a text that is both accurate in the eyes of members and supporters, acceptable to critical ex-members, and informative to everyone else. But we are not quite there yet. Pwesth 15:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
today, I have made quite a lot of changes to the page. I realize that some of them may seem a bit aggressive to the original authors, but I hope you can appreciate my motives.
No doubt, I have commited several errors myself, but I feel confident that they will be corrected by others in due course.
Pwesth 19:18, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
Over the last few weeks I have updated the text. After having read the above comments I have removed repeated references and links from the article, rewritten certain sections to remove ambiguity, and added as much detail as seems fitting based on my own personal experience in the Emin Society for a number of years. I have left untouched any previous text that was not ambiguous. I hope this is a useful contribution..AE 13 December 2006.
Yes, you are quite right, I have rewritten these articles..AE. 19 December 2006
Upon re-reading this I agree that there is insufficient information and context for a proper understanding, so I have added briefly some explanation, albiet only with my IP address because I couldn't remember my logon.
It is still inadequate, but I will attempt to put in more up to date information so that it becomes a better represenation of the Emin / Template Network.
Keith —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Keith**** ( talk • contribs) 12:26, 13 January 2007 (UTC).
19th January 2006. Some changes today to remove repeated information and to place new contributions into the existing structure of the article. Some pevious content that had been removed was restored. Confusion tag removed, but is it still confusing? It seems a lot clearer than when the tag was added. What do other readers feel about this? The article above was also moved into the New Changes section of this page so we can keep track of changes more easily; apologies if that was out of order. The links section has also been cleaned up and the Spam warning has been removed. The Insufficient Context tag has also been removed. There is a lot of good background information there now and perhaps there is enough to give the reader a good idea of the subject. Hopefully the article will grow and develop further but for now what do other readers think about the state of the article?..AE
Pwesth 11:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Pwesth for your comments above. There have been a number of additions to and subtractions from the article over the last month - it has been interesting watching these come and go! Today I have introduced two new sections and reduced the section on Laws which is covered in the article on Laws itself. I hope that this makes an improvement for the moment. AE. 5th March 2007
As there has been no discussion for three months, NPOV tag removed to reduce category backlog. Tyrenius 02:34, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Neutrality in dispute? Having read this page and some of the history attached to it, it doesn't seem to me to be balanced. I acknowledge that this is a difficult task, but in the greater scheme of things it might be a useful exercise to produce a more rounded description of what, after all, is the endeavour of a group of people, however misguided they may appear to others. I don't think it would be unfair to add a new npov tag. What do other contributors think? Keith****09:21, 27 June 2006(UTC)
Speaking of Laws, it seems to me that "The natural laws" are the laws that Gurdjieff introduced. And if they are, then why is this saying
that "Emin groundwork shows" when these are in fact Gurdjieff's laws.
Therefore it seems to me that this article doesn't credit the rightful owner of those teaching concepts which are being thought. Aeuio 20:32, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Tthe truth of things is the truth of things and indeed the Seekers of truth are the seekers of truth - but to say that the 'truth of things' is a word play on the 'seekers of truth' may be stretching one's defense of Gurdijeff too far. Raymond Armin never hid the fact that the origins of his search were inspired in part by Gurdijeff and he credited Gurdijeff. But this is a third party description of another man's work involving a society that has moved on from its originator's teachings. If there are laws that govern the universe, then there are and they aren't the exclusive intellectual property of Gurdijeff, but everyone acknowledges that Gurdijeff preceded and had an influence on Raymond Armin. Equally, you could say that Sir Arthur Conan Doyle also had an influence on Raymond Armin, but that hardly negates Armin's contribution to his own body of work. It is also true to say that The Template Foundation has moved a very long way from its origins in terms of articulating and describing those laws, but that it is for each individual to come to their own understanding and their own positions about their life, the universe and everything. The 'law of gravity' is one of the laws that, in part, describes the behaviour of the universe and although the maths of Newton and Einstein's descriptions may not quite predict the motion of galaxies the fundemental principal of masses being attracted to one another holds. So I've removed the npov tag because frankly the origins are properly attributed given the context.
I'm sure that in 'spying in guruland' the writer recounted that the Emin group he was with wore purple (or perhaps white?) clothing, anyway they had one colour that they predominantly wore. Could this be mentioned in the article, and do they still have any clothing preferences today? It would be important in an encyclopedia article, which attempts to describe what they're like. Merkinsmum 18:21, 27 April 2007 (UTC)
The historical background section is lacking.
There's no wiki article [Raymond Armin]] and the Leo disambiguation page doesn't mention him at all. I haven't been able to find a cause (or exact date) of death so creating a page for him seems premature. In fact, I'd really like to see a citation on either birth or death dates, because the closest I can see is "around 1925" for birth and "2002" for death. The lack of details is curious given the apparent reverence for the man by his followers.
YeauxRly ( talk) 04:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd agree with Pwesth. It looks like the previous Emin material has been deleted by someone sympathetic to The Emin. This is a shame, as it contained interesting historical material on a fascinating and unique group. If anyone can add it back in it would be a great thing.
Their history is constantly re-mythologised, and this new Wikipedia version which has obliterated previous ones doesn't do that rich history justice. It also air-brushes out the cult controversies of the 70s and 80s, which is not helpful to any student of new religious movements. Whether one subscribes to the anti-cult thesis that people join groups like The Emin because of deception, coercion and "brainwashing" - and I most defnitely don't share those views - they are important historically. Their removal suggests that this article is still not a neutral one. -- William1shaw ( talk) 08:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
What is this article? It doesn't make any sense from the intro. A religion? Philosophy? Club? What? -- AW ( talk) 07:50, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
I have added a NPOV tag - again. The concern with "relevance" that is put forth as an argument for deleting historical facts seems to me plainly dishonest. The whole article is now so abstract and vague as to be completely non-informative, which appears to be the way supporters of the Template Network prefer it. -- Pwesth ( talk) 11:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
I have added this tag mainly because the reference to the controversies in Israel during the eighties that have been added. In itself this is relevant information, but as it stands it needs to be contextualized, both with reference to controversies in other countries (such as Britain, Holland and Denmark), and with reference to the larger picture of the Emin's history in Israel.
A possibility that I favour is to add a separate "criticism" or "controversies" section, as there used to be (see [ | page history])
-- Pwesth ( talk) 18:49, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
This page was created with the name emin, then moved to emin society, then moved to the Template Network; now you're denying its purpose by asking to remove quite a lot of notable, historical information. shame on you! put it back in, or split the entry into multiple articles -- 99.231.208.23 ( talk) 00:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
Similarly, the request to introduce a section on criticism or controversy, demonstrates bias, because neither criticism nor controversy mean fact. On the contrary, the media seeks to introduce 'spin' and controversy into articles to make them more interesting. Therefore mass media reports as a basis for decision making does not result in good decisions. Wikipedia is an encyclopdeia and therefore not a forum in which to introduce unqualified media speculation as 'fact'. I still argue that since this is an article on the Template Foundation and not the Emin, Emin history is irrelevant. That would belong on a page on the Emin. The Template Foundation is different and new. There is a commonality of membership, but there are many new members for whom the history is irrelevant. PWesth's assertion of dishonesty seems to declare his own intention. A fair and balanced description of what the case actually is doesn't necessarily mean the article is biased. For example, the Emin's history in Israel is not a negative one. The Template Foundation's activities in Israeli today have no negative connotations. On the contrary, there are lots of very positive things to be said about it. But they are hardly newsworthy. Therefore, Im removed that reference, because it is partial, biased and misleading. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Keith**** ( talk • contribs) 10:19, 3 April 2008 (UTC)
This Emin article was hijacked by the Template Network. I think, it should be renamed again into Emin society, even when it does exist no longer. Much from before May 2007 can be re-inserted, in adapted form. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 13:52, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
A problem with the recovery of deleted texts may be the absence of Reliable Sources. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 09:26, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
The result of the proposal was moved to Emin (esoteric movement) by User:Wickey-nl. In the future, make a move or request one. Don't do both. -- BDD ( talk) 22:37, 22 October 2013 (UTC)
The Template Network → Emin society – Original name. This article is hijacked by The Template Network, which mainly removed content about Emin, without adding substantial text. The history belongs to the Emin article. If relevant, The Template Network can start an own article. Wickey-nl ( talk) 11:00, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
I found an even more satisfying title: Emin (esoteric movement). It covers the organisation itself as well as the movement/its members/its philosophy. -- Wickey-nl ( talk) 16:26, 16 October 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 6 external links on Emin (esoteric movement). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
{{
dead link}}
tag to
http://www.template.nl/en/producten/detail/1874717060.htmlWhen you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 02:19, 1 January 2018 (UTC)
I have a strong concern, looking at the edit history for this page, that anything that might be perceived as critical has been removed from the article. Even if these things are contentious there should at least be a "Criticisms and controversy" section.
Examples:
You don't have to agree with the analysis but this page's edit history looks like it has been censored by a fanatic.
If you guys want this to look less like a cult, try letting some diversity of opinion exist on your wiki page 196.15.206.114 ( talk) 05:37, 16 May 2022 (UTC)