User:Marcperkel

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Church of Reality censorship

I am the founder of the Church of Reality.

I am fighting censorship on Wikipedia to keep them from deleting the Church of Reality entry. Here's some of the history of the discussion.

Overturn and Undelete I would like the Church of Reality undeleted. It was originally deleted because it wasn't notable because it had only 3000 Google hits and it wasn't a 501(C)3 non profit. It now has 24,900 Google hits and is now an [http:// _tax_exempt_status/ IRS blessed 501(C)3 church]. So the reason it was deleted is no longer valid.--Marcperkel 02:12, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • The reason that I gave in the original AFD discussion is as valid now as it was then. Nothing has changed to affect the status of this subject as mis-use of Wikipedia as a soapbox by its author. Marc Perkel has continued his self-promotion campaign and the number of Google Web results has as a consequence increased, but there is still no evidence that this religion has any more than 1 adherent. Keep deleted. Uncle G 02:23, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • The Church of Reality PhpBB discussion board shows 360 users and 1415 articles. That's just the number of Church of Reality members who participate in discussions. Church of Reality Usage Statistics shows 91,000 page views for the month of October. --Marcperkel 02:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • If it has extensive coverage, it doesn't matter why the author wrote the article. I'm not arguing either way yet (waiting to see if people think this new info would change the outcome of an AfD), I'm just saying. -- SCZenz 02:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • The Church of Reality hasn't had extensive coverage. Marc Perkel has created an extensive self-publicity campaign. (In the original AFD discussion I listed several of the web sites that he operates.) But all of the information about this religion comes from a single source, Perkel himself, and thus suffers from the original research, non-neutrality, and verifiability problems that such autobiography does. Even the coverage by Mike Malloy was information sourced directly from Perkel himself. No reliable sources independent of him had produced works of their own about it then, and Perkel has presented no evidence that any reliable sources independent of him have produced works of their own about it since. Perkel has continued his self-publicity campaign, of which it seems apparent that repeatedly submitting this same article to Wikipedia is a part, but this continues to be original research, a novel belief that has not been peer reviewed and accepted into the corpus of human knowledge, for the same reason now as it was then.

        Contrast the situation here with religions that are not original research. You'll find plenty of published works from multiple sources, that are independent of the subject, that deal with Christianity, Islam, Scientology, and the like. (See the references sections of those articles, for starters.) There is nothing like that for Perkel's church of 1 adherent.

        Keeping out novel concepts that have not gained any traction in the world outside of their creators (and the Wikipedia articles written by their creators) is part of the reason that we have a no original research policy. That a proponent is vociferous, and creates a huge self-publicity campaign, does not change that. Uncle G 03:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

  • Keep deleted. 333 unique hits out of those thousands cited, and no references in Google news or Google Book search. Also only 42 hits when searching Google groups. This made-up church is as nn now as it was at the time of the vote. User:Zoe|(talk) 02:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted as per Zoe. Another misguided attempt to use Wikipedia as a launching pad. --TheMidnighters 02:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Abstain, but as the admin who deleted it the 2nd time, I figured I should at least explain my actions. I saw the 2nd listing on AFD, compared the new version to the old/deleted version, and observed that they were substantially the same. To be sure, the new one is longer, but in my opinion, they were on essentially the same topic, so I speedied the new version under WP:CSD G4. I am, shall we say, agnostic on the issue of whether it should be undeleted or not. --RoySmith 02:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted per Uncle G and Zoe. Andrew Lenahan - Starblind 03:03, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Overturn and Keep I have full faith in the Church of Reality (the irony!) --BenE 03:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Neither your faith nor having made your first edit here ({{welcome}} and congratulations) change the issue at hand, which is whether there's new information that warrants a reconsideration of the article's notability. -- SCZenz 03:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Well at least you can't say there are no adherents. This is a religion with international reach, (I'm canadian) Oh and thanks for the welcome! --BenE 04:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
        • The welcome was just a way of pointing out that I’m a meatpuppet wasn’t it? Shame on you for using sarcasm on a newbie!--BenE 04:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
          • Honestly, I was assuming good faith and welcoming you as a possible productive editor. I'll admit I was also pointing out you're new, so that whoever ends up counting viewpoints to determine consensus can take it into account at the end of the discussion. We really do love new editors, but they tend not to be well-versed in deletion policy. So I'm willing to call it partial sarcasm. ;) -- SCZenz 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
            • I'm well versed in your deletion policy. It's simple. If is isn't Christian then it gets deleted. I am totally unimpressed with the censorship here. --Marcperkel 06:24, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
              • That's pretty ridiculous, you're not the only atheist editor here, maybe you should go take a look at Atheism, history of atheism, Criticism of Religion and many more similar articles. If you want to be taken seriously you should drop the whole persecution and censorship act since it's completely groundless and juvenile. Noone has said your articles should be deleted on the grounds of religious outlook, it's the fact that there are only 348 unique google hits and you have yet to prove notability. --TheMidnighters 06:43, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Chuckle. I like this quote from the IRS blessed 501(C)3 church web page, One [IRS] agent even commented that he thought it was one of the most interesting applications he's reviewed. --RoySmith 03:38, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • You'd do well to look at the source of that information. How do we know that the IRS agent said that? Who is telling us? Uncle G 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • So you think I made up 360 users in the BBS discussion and then faked 91,000 hits to generate stats pages? And I faked the Mike Malloy interview, and the IRS tax letter ... --Marcperkel 04:41, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • undelete: Real enough. Ombudsman 04:10, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Might want to consider these FACTS. Usage Stats on CoR website. The Discussion Board Shows 360 members with 1400+ articles that are involved in discussions. Here's the IRS Papers. Here is a recording of the Air America Interview with Mike Malloy. So - is this a one person religion? I don't think so! --Marcperkel 03:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • All of those URLs are for http://www.churchofreality.org/. Information from a web site (one of several) that you own and run, and thus whose content you have control over, does not qualify to be verifiable fact. Uncle G 04:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
      • Yes, but the radio interview is presumably real, isn't it? Likewise the amount of readership the website has matters. The question is only whether the new information is compelling enough to warrant a new AfD. -- SCZenz 04:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • "undelete": **This certainly isn't a parody religion (unlike the flying spaghetti monster)... it is actually very well thought out, I found it quite compelling. I understand that that doesn't mean that it has gotten "traction" on the Web, etc... but Marc has been interviewed on the radio, has IRS tax free status, and was cited by BoingBoing. I think that it's worth an entry! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 151.198.26.199 (talk • contribs) 04:23, 28 November 2005.
  • Keep as far as numbers are concerned, I am also a member. The Church of Reality is a serious undertaking and should remain. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 63.203.231.61 (talk • contribs).
  • Church of Reality Radio Spot. Pretty sophisticated for a religion with only one member. --Marcperkel 04:58, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse and keep deleted. Looks like a valid AFD to me. It's a vanity article with hardly any credible outside sourcing (and the proverbial fifteen minutes of fame just don't cut it). Radiant_>|< 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Here's another outside link...not sure if that makes any diffefrence, but I wouldn't just dismiss it as only having one adherent: http://blog4mike.blogspot.com/2005/11/welcome-to-reality.htmlMar10029 14:42, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • On the other hand, I would dismiss Mar10029 as being a sockpuppet who has only ever made three edits, all to this discussion [1]. --RoySmith 15:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I guess by sockpuppet you mean that you think that I am Marc Perkel, trying to rig the discussion. I am new to Wikipedia, but I really like the COR philosophy, and heard about this discussion on the COR message board, so here I am, to show my support.
    I realize that the fact that I "like the philosophy" is irrelevant to this discussion, but that is why I'm here. I haven't posted before because I don't regularly spend time here. Perhaps that makes my opinions less useful in this forum, I do understand that, and I appreciate the fact that you regular posters put a lot of work into Wikipedia. But I'm not a sock puppet. Sorry to intrude.Mar10029 15:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, keep deleted. Valid AfD with strong consensus to delete. Google Web hit counts as evidence of increased notability is unconvincing, as it is well known that souch counts can be artificially manipulated by "search engine optimization" by anyone interested in self promotion. In contrast, but Google Groups (USENET) shows only 35 hits, Google Books shows no hits at all, and an online search of the last five years of the New York Times up through November 28, 2005 returns "Sorry. There are no articles that contain all the keywords you entered." Dpbsmith (talk) 15:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse close, keep deleted. For all the above-mentioned reasons. Nandesuka 15:40, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Endorse deletion. No new evidence presented to justify overturning the prior decision. Rossami (talk) 15:46, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore- I am a member of the Church, and feel it certainly has as much merit to an article as the Church of Virus --Mcsporran 15:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Restore - Not only am I a member of the Church, I feel that it presents a uniquely articulated viewpoint.
  • keep deleted valid VFD, no demonstration of notability. — Dunc|☺ 15:55, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • restore/keep I must admit that I find it annoying that Marc Perkel calls the deletion censorship. However, The Church of Reality does have members (I'm a member of the mailinglist) and I'm not a sockpuppet. Geronimooo 16:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • I agree with Geronmooo... there really are two separate issues here - validity of the COR, and the Internet/MSM "profile" of the COR. Clearly the latter predominates in this discussion. But it also probably not "censorship", as in active repression of an unpopular viewpoint. I would like the administrators to consider, though, that while I do understand their need to keep Wikipedia reasonably lean and free of self promoting pages, one of the nice things about an online encyclopedia is the ability to more easily include articles on interesting but not widely know topics. This might be a useful exception to the standard numerical rulesMar10029 16:13, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep deleted - I had actually heard about this web-site and visited it previously. My impression was that it is set up like a religion, but in 'Reality' is currently something more like a message board / social club for atheists. However, they still fall short on notability. There are plenty of web-sites with larger user groups and higher traffic which we don't include. I suspect that some of these accounts which are labelled 'sock puppets' are instead actually participants in the message boards there coming to Wikipedia for the sole purpose of voting on this issue. --CBD T C @ 16:34, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • Keep and Rewrite - I'm a fan of the COR and on the mailing list. I think the reasons of deletion are valid. However i would very much like to see an article about the COR on Wikipedia. Perhaps if a 3rd party wear to write the initial article and it could be edited from there. Sorry Marc but i just don't see this as religious censorship. Zath42 17:27, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
  • More Votes to Overturn and Undelete

These people posted in the wrong place. They posted these comments on http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastfission but they are clearly meant to support the restoration of the Church of Reality site. As you can see, they are new to Wikipedia, but their votes still count.--Marcperkel 17:04, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here's what I moved:


CoR


Overturn and Undelete I hear that the Church of Reality was a] deleted and that b] there's only one member. Considering the Church of Reality has federal tax exempt status and I am also a member, I don't think it's appropriate to delete the entry.

Nicole M. Wolverton nicole.wolverton@gmail.com

Church of Reality


Overturn and Undelete Please consider allowing the Church of Reality to maintain a page in Wikipedia. There are many of us who consider this an important organization. The fact that we have been granted 501(C)(3) status should show that the organization is real. Thank you.

Church of Reality


Overturn and Undelete I am a member of the Church of Reality. To call it a "vanity religion" only reflects the prejudice of the Wikipedia gang. Read C of R documents to see that it is a useful, sane, reality-based organization, a novel concept in religion. This is not a fraud, but it was Mark Perkel's idea. Please keep it in Wikipedia. Gordon Clark

I'm friend

I am here too :-)


No one is Vandalizing your Talk Page

As you have stated. If I am the sole member of the Church of Reality as you claim then I can't have followers. You're link is out there and the church of Reality explorers don't like it when people like you are lying about the number of members of the church of Reality. Maybe it's time that you admit that you are wrong. --Marcperkel 15:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

The reason so many people are posting here about the Church of Reality is because of an e-mail on the CoR mailinglist.

"[Fastfission thinks there's only one CoR memeber.] Here is his Talk page. Please let him know that the CoR has more than one member. Click on Edit next to the church of Reality section at the bottom of the page.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Fastfission"

so I doubt it's Marc Perkel using a proxy and spamming. Geronimooo 16:26, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

User:Fastfission removed my talk on talkpage

User:Fastfission removed my talk (and others) on his talkpage. [2] Geronimooo 16:08, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

prejudice of the Wikipedia gang....

  • Yep - he removed a lot of material from his talk page. Looks like he's not following the rules but he took it upon himself to delete the Church of Reality claiming it has only one member so this is what happens. --Marcperkel 16:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • Here's what he deleted


Overturn and Undelete I certainly doesn't matter what this hairball thinks of our church. Reality is what it is and will win against superstition and bigotry in the end. One doesn't even need "faith." (Pardon my dirty mouth.) One doesn't have to believe in reality. Reality will not be swayed by the doubts of unbelievers.


Overturn and Undelete Sirs, I am a member of the Church of Reality. I do not know Mr. Perkel personally, but I am aware of your concerns that his desire to put an article on your site is merely an attempt at self-promotion. I do not believe this is the case. The church is a real (albeit small, relatively new and technically a charity) organization of those like myself, who feel that the injection of mythical deities into an otherwise rational debate of very pressing issues greatly hinders the ability of our collective effort to achieve practical solutions.

Before I became aware of the recent controversy of the posting, I was surprised when I found that your site did not have an article on the church. I had a mind to write one myself when the time became available to me. But, obviously, Mr. Perkel’s article would be more comprehensive (and definitely better written) than any I could write. Thus, with the utmost respect and appreciation for the work you do, and with the understanding that you must be vigilant of those who would use your wonderful resource as a platform for personal gain, I would like to convey my belief that Mr. Perkel’s motives are benefic and the cause just. Please reconsider the deletion.

Thank you, Frank D. nthsign69@yahoo.com

Devout Member of the Church of Reality


Overturn and Undelete I am a recent convert to the Church of Reality. I believe it deserves to have an entry on Wikipedia if for no other reason than it represents a response to the prevalence of supernatural and religious beliefs in modern society.

Church of Reality


Overturn and Undelete I am proud to say that I, too, am a devout member of the Church of Reality, so I believe that you will have to retract your statment that our church has only one member. By the way, the usual disclaimers apply: I do not personally know Mark Perkel nor am I being paid by the church, nor have I accepted any reward or other perquisites for this statement. I just want you to know that we church members are serious about our membership and about our church, and I believe that you are perilously close to the application of a religious "litmus test". I believe you know that this would be the first step on the road to religious persecution of other sects with whom you disagree. Is that really what you want?

Church of Reality vs. Flying Spaghetti Monster


Overturn and Undelete You have a nice site for the Flying spaghetti monster, and you won't have one for Church of Reality?

Take a look at CoR expanding membership and body of work, you should agree that it's much more developerd than the FSM. CoR deserves it's own entry in the Wiki.

thanks.

Church of Reality..


Overturn and Undelete Hey, there more of us than just Marc..! Seriously, read the site.. pretty well thought out and insightful. Certainly more useful as a life philosophy than the pastafarians over at the FSM site, even though they spread a lot faster through viral marketing...

Anyway, just standing up to be counted!

Mike in NYC

Church of Reality..


Overturn and Undelete I'm an active member of the Church of Reality. I regularly post to the forums and can atest to there being many others who engage in discussion within the forums. I believe the Church of Reality deserves to have an entry within Wikipedia.

Chris J.

Northern California

CoR


Overturn and Undelete Missouri here, I totally support the Church of Reality. I think it's a very important movement towards uniting the world in facing REALITY! Before we blow it up in the name of God, and...I'm sure your God would agree.:) M.P. is one of the most brilliant philosophers of the century.

A CoR member.


Overturn and Undelete I am a CoR member in my own ways. I subscribe to the Church's teaching and very much keep up with any new church developments. I also advocate the church when ever I have a chance.

Travis,

Seattle WA

CoR


Overturn and Undelete I belong to the Church of Reality. I think it is insane to have to expose ourselves in order to become recognized.

Get with Reality.

Precipice

San Diego, CA

Reality, church of


Overturn and Undelete Hello, I too am a member in fair standing or the Church of Reality. I recently heard that wikipedia dismissed us as a "parody religion". What BS !! That is like dismissimg W as a parody president. Sure, he has no integrity but he stold the election fair and square. But seriousally, the voice of realists needs at least equal footing with those that want to base life on the ramblinge of people who claim to speak for various desert gods, all claiming to be the number 1 and only god. Get real. dennis lee trabue

I'm also member of Church of reality


Overturn and Undelete I really don't see one sound reason to not include Church of reality on Wikipedia. As far as I know it's the only religion based solely on reason and by no means on faith.

Church of Reality

Overturn and Undelete As an active member of the Church of Reality, I must take exception to your deeply offensive characterization of our Church.

Far from being a "parody" or "vanity site", the COR has recently been given 501C3 tax exempt organization status by the IRS - something I strongly doubt the Flying Spaghetti Monster (which you allow a site entry) has acheived.

By mocking our faith you've engaged in religious discrimination, which may be actionable under U.S. law.

I think you owe members an apology.

And please, in the future, do a bit of honest research before ridiculing the beliefs of others.

Thank you

PROUD MEMBER OF THE CHURCH OF REALITY!


Overturn and Undelete The Church of Reality has only one member? Bah! A parody religion? spew. You should do some research. Marc equals one member, plus me equals two, so you've already lost, and as far as I can see there are many more devoted members of the Church of Reality. The CoR is a serious thang, it isn't there to make you laugh, it's there to make you think about reality and the world around you. I think the flying spaghetti monster just had his wings clipped.

- Thomas King, Auckland, NZ

Devote Member


Overturn and Undelete I stand in support of our Religion. It is a non-profit religious organization with more than one member. CoR alive, well and growing in Michigan.

       Church of Reality is valid


Overturn and Undelete Though created by Marc Perkel, the Church of Reality does have a following of more than just Marc himself. The Church of Reality is fascinating, I consider myself a member and I think what Wikipedia is doing is nothing more than religious censorship.

Toss aside what your personal beliefs are and understand that there are people, like myself, out there who dont subscribe to the standard Christian belief system that is so popular in the US. Is it that hard to fathom a religion based on what is real??? It seems a lot more valid to me because everthing Marc talks about is based on reality. Not faith in some non-existent being or entity that we are supposed to give our lives to.

I dont worship Marc Perkel. I dont worship the Church of Reality. I dont "worship" anyone or anything. I just believe in what is Real. Is that so difficult to swallow?

Lish Robinson

Overturn and Undelete The Church of Reality is as valid as Christianity, Islam or any other religion invented by man. Perhaps it is more valid since its principles are based on testable hypotheses and not ancient scriptures which cannot be validated.


What's hard to swallow is so many new users suddenly arriving at DRV—a page whose existence I didn't discover for months after I joined Wikipedia—and posting expressions of support using such similar styles of phrasing, spacing, and punctuation. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
And that ALL of them somehow managed to hijack MarcPerkel's account. Dpbsmith (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
That's because I sent a link to this page out to all my non-existent members to ask them to vote to undelete. I pointed hundreds of people at this page. I'm hoping that I have at least convinced everyone that the Church of Reality has more than one member. --Marcperkel 17:39, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
    • I guess there is no point in just posting a lot of angry notes from COR members who feel slighted, that is irrelevant to the Wikipedia vetting process. But it is a bit infuriating when something that yre is a lot of good stuff there, far beyond what someone would do for a parody. So I see why Marc reposted them here. But I would think that it would be fairly typical for people who feel strongly about a topic to only show up here when there was a DRV; unless you were really into the workings of Wikipedia, you might not know about the process at all.

In any case, Cory Doctorow felt that the COR deserved a mention on BoingBoing, and both Cory and BoingBoing are well represented on Wikipedia!Mike 18:11, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Elitism and snobbery Let us also not forget the attack on the relatively new users to Wikipedia posting on the DRV. How does it bode for Wikipedia if "noobs" are attacked by elitist snobs... yup calling you out MR Smith... sockpuppet indeed... perhaps you should have just said "heh" or included a link to "RTFM"...

  • Perhaps Marc and his supporters should have "RTFM". Part of being a responsible "noob" is recognizing that established communities, whether they be newsgroups, forums, chatrooms, or even wikis, have a history and a structure and a purpose... And if a "noob" can't be bothered to lurk a bit and learn the lay of the land, he's going to be subjected to some gentle and not-so-gentle correction. What you perceive as "elitism and snobbery" may simply be frustration at having to repeatedly deal with folks that have little interest in building and enhancing Wikipedia, beyond plugging their own POV. - DirkaDirkaJihad 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh and the article regarding the Flying Spaghetti Monster flushes your little comment down the toilet...

  • Sorry, it does not. The Church of Reality has not been covered by New Scientist, Hartford Courant, The Guardian, Baltimore Sun, Der Spiegel, Lawrence (Kansas) Journal-World, Wichita Eagle, Washington Post, New York Times, Austin American Statesman, Daily Telegraph, Gelf Magazine, Gazette Times, Idaho Mountain Express, and Wired News. -DirkaDirkaJihad 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

As a whole I believed that Wikipedia was a communal project, there needs to be guidelines and rules otherwise there is anarchy and parody run riot... however I do believe that the article being POSTED would have elicited more edits and creation than shunning and censoring it.


Dear Mr. Dpbsmith - We aren't all the same person. I dont post here or read this site unless someone calls my attention to it (like Marc did via email to all members). I have been interested in the CoR since the beginning and have indeed met, on more than one occasion, Mr. Perkel. I am a member. I am not Marc Perkel. But I suppose since you are so against Reality it would be easy to just pretend that people arent actually interested in this. I have been trying to promote the church to my friends, family and other people on my MySpace page. I want everyone to know about it because it is really the only 'religion' that is based entirely on what is real.

How can you give credit to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and not what is really REAL??

If it's real, we believe in it.

Lish Robinson (Who is very different looking than Marc Perkel) In Oregon

God Bless Mark Perkel and the Church of Reality! -Cyberfly-

Couple days ago and by complete accident I discovered church of reality website. Didnt take it seriously at all, read a couple articles. The more I read, the more I realized that it is exactly how I felt most of my consious life. While reading, a feeling of satisfaction kept rising - I was really happy that someone finally put this in writting. I really think that the world today can benefit from the concepts described on this site. I dont know Mark in any way, and I really dont think his reasons for creating this masterpiece matter (wether for personal glory or for the good of mankind or anything else) . I feel that information like this should not only be available , but should be very easy to find. World today needs some healthy alternatives for outdated religions. And if "Church of Reality"-like alternatives are not one of them, soon people who abandon child-molesting religions will start believing in Flying Spaghetti Monsters. I ask the admins who keep deleting Mark's articles to please simply read his site - see for yourself.

By the way, anyone knows what happened to it? it seems to be down.

Good luck Mark! VP ( December 19, 2005)

---

I, too, am a member of the Church of Reality. No mere sockpuppet, meatpuppet, or puppet of any sort. I have a pretty strong background on the internet, and I'm proud to back Mark on this challenge to the Wikipedia censorship. If FSM is allowed here, then CoR has more than enough credence to be allowed in Wikipedia. It's clear some people don't like the idea of atheists, humanists, and non-Christians having an actual organized religion with tax-exempt status. If you remove CoR, then you must remove various flavors of Christianity, as they aren't even as "real" as the CoR.

-Wilder K. Wight

  • It's obvious to those that have followed this issue that the claims of censorship have no basis. The issue is whether or not the articles posted by Marc Perkel about his creation, the CoR, meet the standards for inclusion in the Wikipedia. Through this process, Marc and the meatpuppets he summoned through the leftist website BartCop.com have displayed an utter ignorance and disregard for the purpose of Wikipedia, for how Wikipedia works, and for the folks that make it work. - DirkaDirkaJihad 00:21, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Perkel is a self promoter. His so called church has no existence outside of his own web sites. It has no existence in the brick and mortar world.

  • Overturn and Undelete

Is this about article's style and quality, or basis of CoR in reality (to pardon the pun)? One, up to now it was argumented that CoR was "a church of one", and now people are answering the call to show there are more members. Two, CoR has tax exempt status. Like, for instance, Church of Scientology and unlike Pastafianism. Both have Wikipedia articles. Based on those two examples (one counterexample), and IRS approval of tax exempt status, so should CoR. Just because a Church does not postulate a fictious supernatural entity, or some alien, does not make it a parody or a joke. Or "a church of one".
Thank you.
Tomislav Nazifovic
physicist and realist
tnazifov@fizika.org

[edit] Intent for Reconsideration

I am opting for reconsideration of the Church of Reality as the topic for a serious article on the Wikipedia.

[edit] Defense of Subject Matter

This is the only religion (I am aware of) without faith-based religious beliefs. The entire doctrine is open to change. Wikipedians, this is unique.

There is nothing new about the concept of religious awe of the natural universe (reality). It is as old as Benedictus Spinoza who experienced the natural world as divine and God as a synonym for Nature. It was the religion of Albert Einstein who, influenced strongly by Spinoza's philosophies, saw the universe through an identical lens.

What is notable is the foundation of a community of people who see the world in this way. It is ridiculous to call this a religion of one or a parody religion. A church based solely on reality and scientifically supported truth is something many realists have longed for (as evidence, I cite the many realists commenting on AfD pages, this page, and Perkel's forums). As Perkel's site adequately explains, such a church gives realists a sense of religious identity.

Marc Perkel was simply the first to create an actual realist church with government backing. He said himself upon founding the church that he could not believe no one had created it earlier. There is clearly nothing new about the concept of a church based on reality. Marc Perkel was simply the first to take the initiative of creating it.

[edit] Warning to Original Editors

That said, I highly suspect that the manner in which the previous articles on CoR were written was incompatible with the Wikipedia. For example, the style in which you have written the CoR article in wikia is unacceptable. Unless you want the article to get deleted again, I suggest you think very carefully about the edits you make to a re-established article on CoR.

In particular, you cannot write sections of the article from a first-person perspective. The purpose of Wikipedia articles on religion is to examine religions, not promote them. Should we re-establish this article, we will be examining the CoR from a neutral point of view as a socio-religious force. Not proclaiming its message in an attempt to gain adherents.

Despite how enthusiastic any wikipedian may be about the religion, when writing in the Wikipedia itself, we must remain dispassionately objective.

As examples, please view other religious or philosophical articles on Wikipedia such as Jainism, Atheism, or Open source religion. Notice how these articles are analytical in nature, not self-promoting.

We are viewing the religions from an external, explanatory perspective, not from the perspective of either members or critics. We may examine the perspectives of members and critics but we will never write articles as members or critics. This is what makes an article objective. You must at all times maintain objectivity (NPOV) or risk deletion.

[edit] Tight Leash

This article has already been deleted twice. This may be a sign that we will want to (at least at first) be very explicit about our warnings to past and future editors who are enthusiastic about the religion but do not understand the nature of the Wikipedia.

Perhaps you may even want to limit the editing capabilities to members you are certain understand the philosophy of Wikipedia such as myself or long-standing members.

I am willing to begin and maintain an objective article on CoR if no one else is interested. But I think I have made an adequate defense for the possibility of a professional article.

  • Clan-destine 15:50, 17 June 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../m/a/r/User%7EMarcperkel_2849.html"